Senate yesterday and House today extends Patriot Act.

[JB3]

No, it's one of my more intelligent posts (no high bar that) but the problem of civil liberties vs security in wartime has been addressed by scholars, Supreme Court Justices like Breyer and many others.

Lincoln assumed almost dictatorial power, suspending habeus corpus and imposing martial law. FDR took extreme measures during WWII, particulary in regard to the Japanese and Italian Americans.

War time always brings restrictions on individual liberty and the relatively mild intrusions on privacy of the Patriot Act seem warranted and prudent given the threat we face.

The real fear is the misuse of power and for me, Obama and Holder, with their history of respect for civil rights and their unquestioned integrity are much less likely than the Bushies to abuse their power. It's like the old trust excercise of falling backward and trusting someone to catch you - would you trust Alberto Gonzales to break your fall?

No more than I would trust Obama or those that are advising him.

If you buy into the bullshit you're spewing in this thread you're even less intelligent than I thought you were.

 

[iman]

^Who are the victims of the Patriot Act? Who has suffered? What civil liberties have been violated? How has the nation suffered irreparable harm? Where's the damning evidence?

Otherwise, all this angst is just masturbation material for paranoids.

 

[JB3]

^Who are the victims of the Patriot Act? Who has suffered? What civil liberties have been violated? How has the nation suffered irreparable harm? Where's the damning evidence?

Otherwise, all this angst is just masturbation material for paranoids.

You're joking right? As is usual, your post is so nonsensical you're not even worth responding to.

 

[Ambrocious]

^Who are the victims of the Patriot Act? Who has suffered? What civil liberties have been violated? How has the nation suffered irreparable harm? Where's the damning evidence?

Otherwise, all this angst is just masturbation material for paranoids.

One has to question your sanity to know that ever since 9/11, tyranny has been increased and amped up and empowered by far, more and more. If you can not see what is happening to this country...I honestly feel hurt for you. Not that I feel sorry for you because that implies I think your stupid but your NOT stupid. You have been misled and I hope you can see this fact before it is too late for you. Please, this isn't me being an enemy to you. I don't care if you believe me or not...just please listen. I post those videos so much because sometimes people realize what is happening and they change. Many on this forum have changed and realized that tyranny is bipartisan. I hope you can see it too. You may have not been told this, but if you find this is true, you DO have a choice and you can choose what is right, none of us will hate you or think of you badly.

Set aside for a little while most of which you have been told and please, give these films a chance. You can scream at me that I'm crazy all you want. I don't want to make enemies here, I want to save people's minds and hearts. If that's not sounding good then I am truly sorry.



TerrorStorm [Made In 2006]

ENDGAME: Blueprint For Global Enslavement [Made In 2007]

The Obama Deception [Made In March 2009]

Fall of the Republic [Made In October 2009]

NOTE: These are NOT conspiracy theories. Learn to Use Google to research ANYTHING you think is false. I urge you to prove it wrong if you think it is wrong.


YES I already posted them...yes, this matters that I do it again. Please pay attention.

 

[iman]

You're joking right? As is usual, your post is so nonsensical you're not even worth responding to.

If you could respond, you would.

 

[construct]

^Who are the victims of the Patriot Act? Who has suffered? What civil liberties have been violated? How has the nation suffered irreparable harm? Where's the damning evidence?

Otherwise, all this angst is just masturbation material for paranoids.

The Patriot Act raises serious fourth amendment concerns--you know, unreasonable search and seizure, warrants upon probable cause, stuff like that. The Patriot Act was serious overkill at the time, and it's serious overkill to this very day.

 

[JB3]

If you could respond, you would.

As I said in my previous reply, if you honestly think the patriot act has not trampled on our civil liberties you're not even worth responding too.

 

[iman]

Obviously we would rather do without the Patriot Act, but two Presidents and several Congresses have thought that it was necessary as long as we faced a serious threat from terrorists. I don't like taking my shoes off or being scanned at airports, but I recognize the necessity of foregoing some rights and privileges so that I may fly safely.

If the Patriot Act has been so onerous since 2001, where are the victims? Whose rights were trampled? Have the courts been bypassed. It's not enough to run around crying that the sky is falling - show me a piece!

 

[ColorSlaughter]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/world/americas/09iht-fbi.4863162.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/23/AR2005102301352.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1421329820070614

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-releases-comprehensive-report-patriot-act-abuses

http://www.aclu.org/national-securi...records-and-misused-national-security-letters

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/23/AR2006062300167.html

The ACLU released a comprehensive report (that I honestly haven't read yet), and I remember reading articles during the bush years about activists and political opponents being detained (which conveniently disappeared, so feel free to take it with a grain of salt.) However, there is the gag order within the Patriot Act that stops victims of the abuses from talking about it to the public or the press. That fact alone speaks for itself. Its absolutely absurd to say that there are no victims to this act. The amount of power it grants to the executive branch and law enforcement on a local level alone is astounding, let alone the amount of power given to state level law enforcement and federal level law enforcement. The evidence is pretty damning.

 

[iman]

All those links are about the abuse of the law not the law itself or they are about the FBI investigating potential terrorists or attempting to track terrorist financing. I don't like the government intrusion, but if it prevents a disaster, I can live with it. Again, where are the victims? Who was improperly imprisoned or persecuted?

Terrorism always stresses civil liberties. The British used to lock people up without trial and without a term limit during the Irish terrorism during the 1980's. The Patriot Act seems a mild intrusion compared to measures we have seen in the past and such mild measures, if they work, could prevent more drastic measures in the future.

 

[JB3]

All those links are about the abuse of the law not the law itself or they are about the FBI investigating potential terrorists or attempting to track terrorist financing. I don't like the government intrusion, but if it prevents a disaster, I can live with it. Again, where are the victims? Who was improperly imprisoned or persecuted?

Terrorism always stresses civil liberties. The British used to lock people up without trial and without a term limit during the Irish terrorism during the 1980's. The Patriot Act seems a mild intrusion compared to measures we have seen in the past and such mild measures, if they work, could prevent more drastic measures in the future.

If the law is such that it can be abused so profoundly, why renew it?

 

[iman]

^For the same reason that we maintaIn the laws against murder, rape and robbery despite the fact that some folks ignore them.

 

[JB3]

^For the same reason that we maintaIn the laws against murder, rape and robbery despite the fact that some folks ignore them.

You're dodging the question. If the law itself is so poorly written and so prone to abuse, why renew it?

 

[ColorSlaughter]

Did I not mention the Gag Order to the people who recieve the National Security Letters?

Living under the gag order has been stressful and surreal. Under the threat of criminal prosecution, I must hide all aspects of my involvement in the case -- including the mere fact that I received an NSL -- from my colleagues, my family and my friends. When I meet with my attorneys I cannot tell my girlfriend where I am going or where I have been. I hide any papers related to the case in a place where she will not look. When clients and friends ask me whether I am the one challenging the constitutionality of the NSL statute, I have no choice but to look them in the eye and lie.

I resent being conscripted as a secret informer for the government and being made to mislead those who are close to me, especially because I have doubts about the legitimacy of the underlying investigation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032201882.html

But the law still gives the government the upper hand: If the government certifies that challenging an NSL would harm national security, interfere with an investigation or with diplomatic relations, or endanger someone's life, the court has no choice but to uphold the order. Anyone who violates a gag order "knowingly and with intent to obstruct an investigation or judicial proceeding" could face a prison term of up to five years.

The Justice Department says National Security Letters are a vital tool in the war on terrorism, giving FBI agents the ability to quickly find and pursue leads in anti-terrorism investigations.

But critics say these administrative subpoenas violate Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, allowing the FBI to collect information on citizens who are not accused of any wrongdoing.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5440211

"The executive branch cannot suppress speech without any real judicial check on its gag power," said Melissa Goodman, an ACLU staff attorney on this case. "Without oversight, there is nothing to stop the government from engaging in broad fishing expeditions, or targeting people for the wrong reasons, and then gagging Americans from ever speaking out against potential abuses of this intrusive surveillance power."

According to documents released last month, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales lied to Congress in order to make a case for reauthorization of the Patriot Act in 2005. The Attorney General testified that he was unaware of any civil liberties abuses that had taken place with the use of NSLs. But contrary to Gonzales' testimony, internal FBI documents show he was briefed about the abuses.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/patriot-act-gag-power-unconstitutional-aclu-tells-court

So not only do most people who had their privacy intruded by this unconstitutional law not even know about it, they can't know about it unless they are detained. And the people who could actually tell us about these abuses of power and the reasons why these searches were being conducted are under a strict gag order.

You still say this law harms nobody? Even though its in the name of a literal boogeyman, "Terrorism", whose definition is so broad and vast that it can literally mean anything?