Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 5154

What do you all think about the proposed expansion to the Patriot Act? What I've read on the ACLU's website makes me nervous, but that doesn't seem like the best source for unbiased info. Here, at least, I can get a sampling of opinions with random biases, which might average out.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Sedona, Arizona
Posts: 19111

It is yet another step towards protecting our constitutionally guaranteed freedom.

Of course it is being done by taking away those freedoms but I guess we are supposed to assume it is all very good for us.
At least we don't live in the UK.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2002
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 47

i live in Canada, and, until we become a target of American empirialism, i am really grateful that we still have a Constitution that protects our civil rights.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: 0.50
Posts: 9355

"Among other measures, it calls for the creation of a terrorist DNA database and allows the attorney general to revoke citizenship of those who provide "material support" to terrorist groups. "
nice. considering the attitude toward and legal rights of non-citizens involved in terrorism (hooray for precident), that could be a bit scary.

wired news says:
"The act allows the government to:

* Conduct domestic wiretapping without court order for 15 days following a congressional authorization of use of force or an attack on the United States.

* Secretly detain citizens.

* Deport any alien, including green-card holders, who are convicted of drug possession or an aggravated felony.

* Access a citizen's credit reports without a subpoena.

* Abolish federal court "consent decrees" that limit police surveillance of non-criminal organizations and public events.

* Criminalize the use of encryption software in the commission or planning of a felony.

* Apply strict gag rules to those subpoenaed by a grand jury.

* Collect DNA from suspected terrorists and indeed from any individual whose DNA might assist terror investigations.

* Extend authorization periods for secret wiretaps and Internet surveillance.

* Ease restrictions on the use of secret evidence. "

i assume that's fairly accurate, and non-partisan.

hi, i live in canada.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Sedona, Arizona
Posts: 19111

Canada needs to know these things, they will be horribly relevent to them sooner than they think.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: 0.50
Posts: 9355

hopefully there's an invasion or something, i'd rather feel oppressed than betrayed.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

Very few of those things that BP lists bother me at all. I could care less if the CIA or the FBI or the ONI or the NSA or the NRO
bug my phone or open my mail or get my credit history or dig into my bank account or examine my hair (ha ha) for a DNA sample. I have been subject to a good bit of that kind of surveillence of my activities for many years at a time. If any of those things will assist in putting a terrorist out of action its OK by me. Only those who break the law really have anything to fear from that. We Americans are a bit spoiled I am afraid. We want to have all the openess of a 1930 US in 2003 and still have the peace and good will of the world and not have to worry about terrorist acts. It just isn't going to work that way. If we maintain our open society where any person can walk across any border of the country and buy a Social Security card, a driver's license and use those for voter registrationn then we have to expect the consequences of that careless border policy and control of our own internal security. My fear is that Patriot II will be watered down or ineffectively enforced. The Ford Foundation will donate billions to
see that it fails. Them is my biased sentiments.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: NH
Posts: 6086

Operation: Leafblower (when we invade Canada) will rock BP!, just you wait.

I stole that name from someone but I cant remember who. I know missphinx is fully behind it, thats all that counts.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

I'll sign up DI. I gotta have some place for summer pasture. it is too damn hot in Texas.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 5526

I am so there.

Onward and upward, AWAY!

(Dibs on the sofa)

(I don't say "I am so there." in real life.)

(My neighbor has a leafblower I will personally donate to the cause.)

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: 0.50
Posts: 9355

slippery slopes!
the leafblower thing came from a website that generated military operation code-names.
go ahead and invade, it'll be vietnam all over again. all this space, and a semi-armed populace, but we're WHITE. you won't know who to shoot, and we blend with the snow.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 16302

Easily dealt with.

Kill em all, let god sort em out.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26415

quote:

---

Originally posted by oxsan
Only those who break the law really have anything to fear from that.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

As far as oxsan's fear that anyone can walk over teh border and get a social security number and a driver's license, I can tell you that isn't possible to do that legally, already. Making it 'more illegal' might not be the answer, if that is what you are talking about, oxsan. It also makes it impossible to buy a car from a dealer, at least in NJ, although I guess that private purchase would still be possible.

It is a matter of taste, but I was under the impression that americans had restrictions on their government's ability to look into their lives, and their ability to secretly arrest people, and so on, becuase of their mistrust of government. Are these powers permanent? Because fear of terrorism isn't the same as suddenly trusting your government.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

Smug, I too wish that we could have a free society where we could trust all the people that walk the street but those days are gone. Society is not as benign as it used to be. I have no fear of Patriot II or of the government becoming oiffensively intrusive in my life. At 75 I have never been arrested or detained in the US
(I have in foreign countries until I paid a bribe), it has been over thirty years since I got a traffic ticket, and I have never been a defendent in a court of law except as the agent of the company I worked for. It is perfectly all right for the CIA, FBI, NSA, ONI,NRO or AFSS to tap my telephone and listen to everything I say on it. they can open my mail if they wish, they can look at my bank records and review my IRS forms and even have people follow me wherever I go---in fact, some of the places I go I would welcome that. As I noted above I lived in a very transparent glass cage for many years and experienced no problems therefrom.

To the best of my ability I obey the laws of my city, state and nation and I find that I have the respect of law enforcement officers because I do. Many of you don't care for John Ashcroft. I find him much more to my liking than Mohammad Atta or Janet Reno.

And as to the social security card and drivers license. Very good fake credentials can be obtained in Dallas for fifty dollars each and even a birth certificate (fake) for $150 unless they have gone up recently. They are illegal of course but they work fine. I don't know what a passport costs these days but they are available too.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 10152

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
Are these powers permanent?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

I was asking about the proposed Patriot II powers. I knew that the original Act had an expiry date.

Worth noting that the anti-terrorist powers (which are also objectionable to some, allowing longer detention without charge and so on) that we have had for years in the UK get renewed every year anyway. Is it likely that the Patriot Act powers (and the Patriot II, assuming they have the same limitations) will be renewed, or that they will be allowed to lapse (a stunning invitation for any terrorist to embarass the government if they are, of course)? It seems to be that the potential risk of losing the powers and having a subsequent vote losing act of terrorism (even if it wasn't one that the powers would have prevented) might persuade politicians to leave them intact by renewing them.

Am I the only person who doesn't really like the naming of the Act? It isn't terribly descriptive I don't think, it seems more like an attempt to sell the Act (if you don't like it, you might be unpatriotic, might be an implication in the minds of some, for example).

If a democracy wants to expand the powers of government, then that is fine, obviously (as long as the new powers are legal under laws that take precedence over them; in the US case that would be the constitution, I guess). That is the point of democracy, after all. Objections that some might have are that the Acts might be railroaded through and that fears might be raised simply to allow the passing of the act (I don't have an opinion on this one way or the other).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2001
Location:
Posts: 18142

I'm a little leary of the "they don't have anything to fear if they're not breaking the law" logic you put forth, Dad". Until just recently, I was a felon simply for bein queer. And if Ashcroft can't handle a bare breast, I doubt if he feels very strongly about protecting my civil liberties. Your logic kept many people from acting while gays and Jews and gypsies were rounded up. After all, Germans felt secure and hopeful for the first time in years and didn't want to rock the boat and appear unpatriotic. I too find the name of the act unpalatable and wish they'd named it something like "The 2002 Security Act" or something. But then, I have a problem with the name of Operation Enduring Freedom as well. Why call it that? It should have a name that is completely innoccuous and unrelated to any agenda, I think. Perhaps, Operation MuffyTits or Operation Sandcastle. Anything but the way they talk now would suit me. I feel as if I'm being talked to like a child by my government ever since 9/11 and not a citizen of one of the most educated republics in the history of man.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 5154

I can't agree with your argument, oxsan. Given the broad definition of "terrorist groups" proposed by Patriot, and what the government is allowed to do to "terrorists" under these rules, those of us whose acts are protected by the Bill of Rights may still come under attack by the government, even to the point of being stipped of citizenship or indefinitely detained without charges.
If you wish to allow the government to listen to your conversations, etc., you may do so. I can also accept that if they can get an impartial judge to agree that it is necessary. However, doing so because an appointed official certifies that it would be useful is an unacceptable invasion of privacy.
Even if I believed that the current government would not abuse these extraordinary powers (and I don't believe it), I will guarantee that, if they exist, they will at some point be abused. I am not convinced that they provide us additional protection to justify that risk.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

The other three children I have are reasonable.

The "right to privacy" is a doctrine invented to support the right to abortion.

The word "Patriot" has a very good connotation to me. I wouldn't really care what the name of the act is.

As to your being endangered because of your homosexuality I can only say that society changes from time to time. If you lived in the 17th or 18th centuries you might well be stretched by the Holy
Office (the Spanish Inquisition). Saying "I was a felon just because I was a queer" doesn't take into account a whole revolution of thinking about sexual mores and preferences that is not yet complete in this country. I would say that your preference still puts you in some danger in certain parts of the country and may continue to do so even though it is illegal. People just do not change their attitudes as quickly as you would probably like. Sexual mores are very deeply rooted and inherently tied to religious principles and they are difficult to change.

Talaroh, a difference of opinion is what makes horse races worth while. We have one.

I'll still say , if you are not breaking the law you have nothing to fear from the 2002 Security Act----or any other law.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 5154

I thought the right to privacy was inferred from the protection from unreasonable search and seizure?

If I am being naive, please forgive. I've got a lot to learn--that's why I'm here.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

As I understand it, the 'right to privacy' is now considered by the US Supreme Court to be a part of the constitution, is it not? In which case, like it or not, it is law, surely?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

The right to privacy as a justification for abortion is settled law by virtue of Roe vs Wade but the expansion of that doctrine to a million other applications sued for by the ACLU. MALDEF and a dozen other liberal groups is not yet settled law. You will notice that the Judiciary Committee always asks a candidate up for nomination , "Do you believe that the Constitution provides citizens a right to privacy?" The right to privacy for things other than abortion and one or two other very narrow issues is still up for grabs judicially. The right to privacy was extrapolated by the Supreme Court from the "unreasonable search and seizures" language in the constitution but it has been denied in as many cases as it has been allowed.. It is a very fuzzy legal path that was trod for a political reason and there are many jurists that still would hold that it was erroneous. That one has to be played out yet. Priscilla Owens was not confirmed by the Democrat Senate because she once wrote in an opinion while on the Supreme Court of Texas that the "right to privacy" did not extend to 15 year old minors the privelege of an abortion without prior notification to her parents prior to the abortion. It is an issue where there is much heat and fire still to be expended.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged