First: Moderators, please erase this thread if you consider it unacceptable or if it gets out of control.

My question: I just want to know if you can point out at one section of the Patriot Act and tell me why it is wrong. (here is the summary, click on the link and scroll down a bit)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR03162:@@@L&summ2=m&


Please, be brief and concise so we all feel compelled to read what you posted (I think that 2 paragraphs is more than enough to make a point), be civil, and don't give us the anti-Bush/Republican rhetoric that we can get anywhere on the Internet.

Why I ask this? At work, I am surrounded by highly educated people, but nobody can tell me a specific for why the Patriot Act is wrong, or if they give me a reason and I ask them to point it out in the document above where that reason falls, they can't.

Thanks
Ropera

>First: Moderators, please erase this thread if you consider
>it unacceptable or if it gets out of control.
>
>My question: I just want to know if you can point out at one
>section of the Patriot Act and tell me why it is wrong. (here
>is the summary, click on the link and scroll down a bit)
>
>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR03162:@@@L&summ2=m&
>
>
>Please, be brief and concise so we all feel compelled to read
>what you posted (I think that 2 paragraphs is more than enough
>to make a point), be civil, and don't give us the
>anti-Bush/Republican rhetoric that we can get anywhere on the
>Internet.
>
>Why I ask this? At work, I am surrounded by highly educated
>people, but nobody can tell me a specific for why the Patriot
>Act is wrong, or if they give me a reason and I ask them to
>point it out in the document above where that reason falls,
>they can't.
>
>Thanks
>Ropera
>
___________________________________________________
The "Patriot Act", in large part, is smoke and mirrors , designed to make us feel more comfortable.
But the dangerous, unspoken (inferred) part has silently, sneakily taken away some of our freedoms. It would not take a very serious act by outside forces on our country to make the "unseen" powers in the act the law of the land.
We will "rue the day" when a terrorist attack happens and the full effect of "The Patriot Act" is enforced on us and our daily lives. Why?
Because there are no limits to the powers granted to the government in an "emergency": any serious terrorist attack could very well (would) trigger Martial Law.

Of course its mostly smoke and mirrors. Its hardly surprising that our rights will be eroded in any conflict situation. In every war since and including the Civil War, the government withdrew some basic constitutional guarantees as a "security need". Lincoln, among other things, suspended the right of habeas corpus.

Your first trip to any airport after 9/11 will tell you that, with what it ludicrously called "security".

My list of what's wrong with that procedure is too long to post here, but a couple that really get me are (1) crux of the situation is that passengers on any commercial flight will never again assume they are on a free trip to Cuba, and will resist any hijack attempt with all the force they can muster, (2) The politically correct anti-profiling ethos has security goons pawing thru the luggage of blue-haired grandmothers, while ignoring young men with dark, middle eastern features.

I wish I had a Beechcraft or a Mooney, but then they periodically throw up so many "no fly" zones that I probably couldn't go where and when I wanted to.

Ray

I don't have much problem with the Patriot Act. If for no other reason than our elected representatives passed it into law.

I have far more problems with the regulations made by agencies and enforced as if they were law, or worse, without any access to due process. They are nothing new, and have been a steadily increasing part of US Government for 50 years or more.

If you are interested, I suggest reading the book: Lost Rights by James Brovard.

I also think that those who complain about the Patriot Act have very little knowledge of history and the actions taken by the government in the Civil War, WWI and WWII.

I don't have much problem with the Patriot Act. If for no other reason than our elected representatives passed it into law.

I have far more problems with the regulations made by agencies and enforced as if they were law, or worse, without any access to due process. They are nothing new, and have been a steadily increasing part of US Government for 50 years or more...

Isn't that just a tad self-contradictory given that a primary purpose of the Patriot Act would seem to be to give the administration and its agencies even more power to do just that?

And do you honestly believe that the elected representatives of the USA, Australia, Cnada, GB or any other democratically elected government have never passed a bad law? Or are you saying that only applies in the USA because your elected representatives are so much better than everyone else's?

Have you actually bothered to read the Patriot Act, Paul?

Or "Lost Rights"?

And really, what do you care? The rights of prisoners were clearly set out on Australia from the beginning, and given the rights that your government takes from you with your permission, it seems you want to be treated just that way.

I care for natural justice, a concept that seems foreign to you and the current US administration. If you're talking about Guantanamo Bay, which I wasn't (changing the subject again?) you're absolutely right - they were imposed, not discussed or suggested. Some way to treat an allied country!

And the Australian government has done nothing with my permission. I have never in my life voted for this lot.

.

I don't have much problem with the Patriot Act. If for no other reason than our elected representatives passed it into law.

...given the rights that your government takes from you with your permission...


So in your opinion the US government, and only the US government is incapable of passing bad laws? Idiot statement #1

And EVERY citizen of a country agrees with and shares responsibility for every bit of legislation passed in that country? Idiot statement #2

You're really losing your grip on reality.

The point is that with legislation, if the public doesn't agree with it, they can vote someone in to change it.

It is how representative government works. Since you have never voted for anyone in the government by your own admission, you just illustrate that you are out of touch with your fellow citizens.

That's complete and utter crap, and you know it is.

Since the average margin in federal elections is less than 5% (in fact Labor topped the primary vote in our last Federal election), and the Labor Party have held federal government for close on half my adult life, and also hold power at state level in every state in the country, it's rubbish to say I'm out of touch.

>I don't have much problem with the Patriot Act. If for no
>other reason than our elected representatives passed it into
>law.

Tell that to U.S. District Judge Victor Marreo, because he has a problem with it and in fact ruled the surveillance powers granted to the FBI unconstitutional, claiming it violates constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable searches and free speech rights by barring those who received FBI demands from disclosing they had to turn over records. Talk about Due Process.

You're one of those completely devoted unquestioning drudges Orwell talked about. You talk about history, suggest you take your own advice and learn it. Elected representatives also passed the Sedition Act making it a crime to speak or write anything against the government - a violation of the 1st Amendment. But then you wouldn't have had much of a problem with that law either, would you?


http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/29/patriot.act.ruling.reut/

You know HAL, you have no idea what my opinion of the Sedition Act, or any number of other acts are.

Unlike you, I don't get my history from a linguist, I actually read source documents as well as qualified historians who have had their materials reviewed by their peers. And I read multiple sources.

So tell me Hal...

Which President is it that disbanded a state legislature? That "relieved" a court?

Are you familiar with how many of the programs that FDR attempted were ruled unconstitutional?

Can you tell me what Presidents kept US citizens prisoner incommunicado on US soil without any due process until 1 year after the cessation of hostilities?

Can you tell me which President authorized the use of artillary against US citizens?

It discriminates against paranoid people, by making them more paranoid.

Dave

Dell 8300 Dimension
Pentium 4
W XP Home


www.woodenpropeller.com

A good one, Dave

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/PATRIOT/sunset/

There ya' go - one-click, easy to understand reasons. Pete

One click, yes, but it doesn't answer anything to the original question.

All of those items are just descriptions of methods that the PATRIOT Act was empowered to use to stop terrorist acts before they occur. They are summarized by EFF with the opinion that they are what's wrong with the Act, but the explanation of why is all conjectural and, in my opinion, a little paranoid.

I realize there is a balance between security and freedom, but I'm willing to have my IP address monitored with everyone else's if it improves the level of security for me and my family. Sure, it would be nice not to have to do that, but it also would be nice if there weren't thugs in the world who wanted to destroy us.

Dave

Dell 8300 Dimension
Pentium 4
W XP Home


www.woodenpropeller.com

>One click, yes, but it doesn't answer anything to the
>original question.
>

Of course it does, Dave. What did Ropera ask for? "My question: I just want to know if you can point out at one section of the Patriot Act and tell me why it is wrong."

I gave one link that contains further links to 14 different, specific sub-sections of the "patriot" act - and why they are wrong. They may not be just two paragraphs long, but they're very well presented and concise as they actually can be given the subject-matter.


>All of those items are just descriptions of methods that the
>PATRIOT Act was empowered to use to stop terrorist acts before
>they occur. They are summarized by EFF with the opinion that
>they are what's wrong with the Act, but the explanation of why
>is all conjectural and, in my opinion, a little paranoid.
>

As you say - what you get out of what you read leads to your forming your own opinion - that's why I provided the link above - so that people could form their own opinion(s).


>I realize there is a balance between security and freedom,
>but I'm willing to have my IP address monitored with everyone
>else's if it improves the level of security for me and my
>family.

If that were actually the case ("improves the level of security for me and my family." it would be nice. As of yet, there is absolutley no evidence that it's true. Furthermore, I'm not willing to simply put the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and our pre-9/11 judicial system in the trash while we fight a "war against terrorism" which will be never-ending, since it's a "war' against a behavior (terrorism) rather than a war which can directed against any specific individual country and won.

>Sure, it would be nice not to have to do that, but it
>also would be nice if there weren't thugs in the world who
>wanted to destroy us.

We don't have to do this the way it's being done, Dave - every single provision of the "patriot" act could be made to apply specifically and only to foreigners on American soil or abroad - NOT to legal, innocent American citizens.

(American "terrorists" could be handled within the framework of PRE-9/11 law and government power - which is the right way to treat American citizens - and, supposedly, what being an American citizen was all about). Pete


Compaq Presario 7110US, 1.3GHz ThunderBird, 768MB RAM, 160GB HD, WinXP Pro w/SP1, TDS-3, WormGuard, Port Explorer v1.8, Process Guard v.2.0, The Cleaner Pro v.4.1 b.4252, TrojanHunter V.4.0 Build 877, NOD32, XP ICF, ALL javacool programs, SBS&D, SPYCOP

Your question was answered long ago by a man far wiser than than I am.

Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.
-- Thomas Jefferson.

Shelly

I disagree with that statement. Had Thomas Jefferson lived today he probably wouldn't have said that AND he wouldn't have any slaves for that matter.

Visit the Basement

Well you must think Benjamin Franklyn was a dummy too, he said exactly the same thing. Who needs the advice of founding fathers when we have people like you who can read the minds of the dead, and know what they would think today? I have no doubt you could even write a better Declaration of Independence and Constitution then those old jerks did.

Shelly

Boy can you blow things out of context!

All I said was that with a man of his intelligence I bet he would not of said that today, in the world we now live in.

Visit the Basement

Thanks all for taking the time to post your answers.

I agree with Al, laws are not a problem but proper enforcement is, and I think it could apply to any law.

I think that Dave has a valid point regarding the spread of paranoia, and I believe that this is because we don't take the sufficient time to read the law. I also agree when he says that there is a balance between security and freedom, and not only with regards to this Patriot Act but with laws in general. (I remember reading somewhere that "all laws are restrictive in their essence").

Thanks Pete for the link. I compared the first Patriot Act Section interpreted by this Electronic Frontier Foundation, finding (if my understanding of English is correct) a completely opposite interpretation, that's why I didn't read the rest:

The Foundation says: "Section 214 makes it easier for the FBI to install "pen registers" and "trap-and-trace devices" (collectively, "pen-traps") in order to monitor the communications of citizens who are not suspected of any terrorism or espionage activities."

The text of the Law says: "(Sec. 214) Prohibits use of a pen register or trap and trace devices in any investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities that is conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

Also, Pete, we can not treat foreigners on American soil differently from American citizens. The Constitution prohibits so.

Shelly, I have to agree with Abib. I think that we are taught to accept and apply famous quotes from famous men without keeping in mind the circumstances during which they where said. That's why I like when quotes are accompanied by a brief recount of when and why someone said what he said.

I was thinking that (and I hope that I am not exaggerating), with my credit card company tracking how many inflatable dolls (and inflatable sheep) I bought this month, with my health care insurance keeping a database of my tests and health ailments for future reference, with my professional licensing body keeping a database of all my profession-related activities to be shared with the other 9 States in which I can practice nursing, etc., etc., my chances of remain anonymous in this place and time are somewhat limited. I am "trackable" already, in legal (and maybe illegal ways) by private companies and governmental agencies. What a wonderful world!

You must be doing something wrong, inflateable sheep shouldn't be giving you diseases. Are you sure you're blowing them up right?

Until 9-11, we Americans had, and certainly felt we had-carte blanche, unassailable freedoms.

I don’t care that others (The Bush government and a Republican Congress) think we haven’t lost anything in their pernicious, overreaching post 9-11 legislation: we have.
It is one thing for the “Terrorists” to oppress my freedoms, but for the government to put in place administrative rules that need nor have checks and balances before more suppressive rules or dictates can be put in place smacks of totalitarianism.

I know the world has changed. I know we must be vigilant. But this administration has suppressed my freedoms by legislative and adminstrative fiat and that too smacks of a creeping tyranny the Founding Fathers would take up arms against.

“Homeland Security” (Fatherland Securitat) too smacks of the early days of another dictator who ostensibly was “protecting the country” from in his case, “home grown” terrorists.

I didn’t serve and bleed to see my country and its real and implied freedoms subsumed by a fear-mongering government.

>It is one thing for the “Terrorists” to oppress my freedoms,
>but for the government to put in place administrative
>rules that need nor have checks and balances before more
>suppressive rules or dictates can be put in place
>smacks of totalitarianism.

EdGreene, you're on the money w/ that one. The Bush regime has done nothing but to erode our individual freedom in manners so sly and seemingly innocuous... all done w/ the proclamation "in order to protect our freedom". Smells more like bullsh*t to me.

The Bush regime to control our individual lives is not only evident w/ the Patriot Act, but their attempts to make gay marriages "illegal" or "unconstitutional". I work with a staunch Repbulican supporter who voted for Bush. But even he thinks that Bush's attempt for a constitutional admendment in this regard is total BS and a waste of time.

>Until 9-11, we Americans had, and certainly felt we had-carte
>blanche, unassailable freedoms.

Read "Lost Rights" or talk to any competent lawyer. You are a fool if you actually believe what you wrote.

Here I am perusing the musings and nearly fall out of my chair.

Well, the cat's out of the bag; I really do read these topics.

ProTip: Cats have claws, keep them away from anything inflatible!

Ropera - Respectfully, you do yourself a serious dis-service by not reading the rest of them, because - taken in whole - they clearly outline the extent of the possible future abuses involved.

But that's okay.

Your examples of already being tracked and profiled (and here's a funny clip for you: http://www.aclu.org/pizza/ ) should be a warning bell for you.

You have absolutely no way - already - to correct or contest the majority of that information, whether it's right or wrong. In the instances where you do, it's a long, drawn-out, involved (and potentially-expensive) process.

Your permission (implicit because you agree with it or implied by your silence about it) to let the government draw from possibly incorrect commercial and professional databases to build a dossier on you only encourages them to seek more and more (and like-wise encourages more and more companies to find more information on you so they can sell to the government gravy-train).

Take a simple matter like identity-theft. What if the one who steals your identity is a terrorist? Think straightening out your credit is bad? Try enlightening a S.W.A.T team that it's all just a big mistake.

The government's information on you will be secret, their sources unknown and your possiblity of redress for in-accurate information in that file to be nil.

Is that really what you want? Because, for each little inch you give on any of these items before us, you give them carte blanche to get it all - their way.

Secretly, un-correctably and permanently.

You want a quote?

"Inevitably, we reap not only what we sow, but what we let grow - in this case, a totalitarian form of government." (Pete 10/4/04).

CDT POLICY POST Volume 10, Number 16, October 4, 2004

A Briefing On Public Policy Issues Affecting Civil Liberties Online
from
The Center For Democracy and Technology

(1) Senate Amendments Propose PATRIOT 2, Threaten Civil Liberties
(2) Background: 9/11 Commission Legislation Has Serious Implications for
Privacy and Civil Liberties
(3) What Should -- and Should Not -- Be Part of the Intelligence Reform
Legislation
_______________________________________________

(1) Senate Amendments Propose PATRIOT 2, Threaten Civil Liberties

Today, the U.S. Senate begins voting on amendments to legislation to reform
the intelligence agencies. Two amendments in particular threaten civil
liberties. Both are sponsored by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ).

The Senate intelligence reform legislation would create a Civil Liberties
Board in the Executive Branch of the federal government to oversee counter-
terrorism programs that have implications for privacy or free speech. The
Senate bill also would create Privacy and Civil Liberties Officers in
various federal agencies that handle personal information. Together, these
two mechanisms could provide important checks on government overreaching.

One of Senator Kyl's amendments would weaken the proposed Civil Liberties
Board and would remove the provision creating Privacy and Civil Liberties
Officers. The amendment goes against one of the key recommendations of the
9/11 Commission, which is that we need a cross-agency oversight board to
protect privacy and civil liberties in an age of greater information sharing
and powerful new technologies. CDT believes that the provisions under attack
by Sen. Kyl must be part of any legislation to implement the 9/11
Commission's report.

* CDT Letter Opposing the Kyl Amendment to Gut the Civil Liberties Board:
http://www.cdt.org/security/patriot2/20041001cdt.pdf

Sen. Kyl (R-AZ) has also introduced an amendment to the Senate bill that
would expand the USA PATRIOT Act with a variety of new powers, including
giving the FBI so-called "administrative subpoena" authority, meaning that
FBI agents could demand paper and electronic documents without judicial
approval.

A broad coalition of public interest groups from across the political
spectrum is opposing the Kyl PATRIOT 2 amendment.

* Right-Left Coalition Letter Opposing Kyl "Patriot 2" Amendment:
http://www.cdt.org/security/patriot2/20041001coalition.pdf
________________________________________________

(2) Background: 9/11 Commission Legislation Has Serious Implications for
Privacy and Civil Liberties

Under the pressure of election year politics, both the House and Senate are
considering legislation to reform the nation's intelligence agencies. In
the process, privacy and other civil liberties are at risk.

The legislation is intended more or less to implement the recommendations
of the commission that studied the intelligence failures associated with
the 9/11 attacks. The bipartisan commission issued its best-selling report
on July 22, 2004. Immediately, some politicians called for swift adoption
of the Commission's recommendations, which include the establishment of a
National Intelligence Director and the creation of a government-wide
information sharing capability.

The Senate bill has been reported by Committee and is pending on the Senate
floor, to be voted on this week. The House will take up its bill on
Wednesday, October 6. The Senate bill addresses only issues raised by the
9/11 Commission, but the House bill extends far beyond the scope of the
Commission's report.

* 9/11 Commission Report: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
* Senate Bill, S. 2845 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:s.02845:
* House Bill, H.R. 10 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.00010:
_____________________________________________________

(3) What Should -- and Should Not -- Be Part of the Intelligence Reform
Legislation

The legislation to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission
should do just that - and no more. Yet the House bill contains many
controversial provisions that are well outside the scope of the Commission's
report. Among the far-reaching proposals in the House bill that were not
recommended by the 9/11 Commission is the creation of a de facto national
identification card based on requiring states to link together all of their
drivers license databases. While CDT has long argued that identification
documents need to be made more secure, we should not - and need not - create
a national ID card.

The House bill does contain a provision creating Privacy and Civil Liberties
Officers, but it does not include the Civil Liberties Board that can look at
issues that cut across agencies, such as information sharing and watch lists.

Lacking from both bill at this point is a clear prohibition against the CIA
and defense intelligence agencies engaging in covert operations in the
United States.

Information sharing is an important issue that CDT believes is
unquestionably an important part of intelligence reform. The Senate bill
is intended to promote information sharing and bring it within a framework
of transparency, guidelines and accountability. CDT believes that the
Senate language should be maintained and clarified to make it clear that
the system could be used only for counter-terrorism purposes and that major
implementation will not occur until after Congress has had a chance to
review the Administration's plan and privacy guidelines.
_____________________________________________________

Detailed information about online civil liberties issues may be found at
http://www.cdt.org/.

This document may be redistributed freely in full or linked to
http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp_10.16.shtml.

Excerpts may be re-posted with prior permission of ari@cdt.org

Policy Post 10.16 Copyright 2004 Center for Democracy and Technology


--
To subscribe to CDT's Activist Network, sign up at:
http://www.cdt.org/join/

If you ever wish to remove yourself from the list, unsubscribe at:
http://www.cdt.org/action/unsubscribe.shtml

If you just want to change your address, you should unsubscribe
yourself and then sign up again or contact: mclark@cdt.org
--
Michael Clark, Grassroots Webmaster
mclark@cdt.org
PGP Key available on keyservers

Center for Democracy and Technology
1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
http://www.cdt.org/
voice: 202-637-9800
fax: 202-637-0968

__________ NOD32 1.884 (20041004) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
part000.txt - is OK

http://www.nod32.com

ED: >"Until 9-11, we Americans had, and certainly felt we had-carte
>blanche, unassailable freedoms".

AL: "Read "Lost Rights" or talk to any competent lawyer. You are a fool if you actually believe what you wrote".

I usually don't talk to Right Wing Loonies, but in this case...

Every American until 9-11 thought we had bullet-proof freedoms, bought with Chuchill’s..."blood, sweat and toil". We all thought others in the world lived in conditions that were, or are, suppressive of thier God-given freedoms.

My first tour of duty was in Germany in 1956 to 1959. In those days, Europeans could not travel from one country to the next without being subjected to searches. You could not travel from Bad Tolz to Vienna for example without being interrogated, or detained if the local constabulary didn’t like your looks. We GIs usually traveled in uniform so we were not interdicted as much, but Europeans were customarily and routinely hassled.

I was TDY to Panama, stationed in Laos in 1962 and later, Thailand in 1964. My last tour, MAAG Vietnam 1965-66, saw me and other GIs subjected to, in uniform or not, arbitrary interdiction by police, especially when wearing those damn ubiquitous “Hawaii” shirts.
Stateside, all those fears and uncomfortable feelings disappeared.

Those creepy, disgusting feelings crept back into my life the first day I flew after somewhat onerous-but still bearable search measures were put in place at airports after hijackings became a fear factor.
But immediately after 9-11, those arbitrary searches at airports crept into Greyhound Bus stations.
I live in Clinton Hill-Brooklyn, New York and was visiting my daughter who lives in Philadelphia (Conshocken). While was was standing in line to board a shuttle bus back to New York City, Bus Station "Security” was randomly picking out travelers standing in line and going through their bags and asking for ID.

That same, disgusting feeling, feelings I had forgotten from “back in the days” in Post War Europe slapped me in the face when I was ordered to take of my friggin’ shoes at the airport in Atlanta.

While “Federales” may be a bit more intrusive in personal freedoms, many local Gendarmes have taken the “Patriot Act” to ludicrous extremes, interdicting ordinary citizens in the name of “Homeland Security”, which prompted my: “Until 9-11, we Americans had, and certainly felt we had-carte blanche, unassailable freedoms".

But of course, since you took my comment totally out of context to make your smarmy remark, you missed the point of my post.

I heard and hear your Jackboots clicking, I see your arm rising in rigid salutes as you genuflect to “Law and Order”.
It’s you and your kind and your Right Wing Fascism that keeps me vigilant against losing more of my and other Americans eroding freedoms…

I'm sorry Ed I didn't know flying and taking a bus was a right, I thought it was a privledge.

And these searches are usually something you agree to when you pay your ticket.

If you're complaining about being searched or having your shoes searched. Then move to a different country. I would gladly take my shoes off for inspection for security reasons. I'm sure any intelligent minded person would feel the same way for that added security because who knows when the next shoe bomber is on your plane.

On 9/11 america was being held hostage by a freaking box cutter and you're whining about added security and taking your shoes off?!

Blaming your personal whiny gripes about searches and taking your shoes off on a right wing agenda is lame. Get a grip man!

Visit the Basement

Yes, thats one big reason why the airlines are going bankrupt. I used to fly at the drop of a hat in business (Read that as full price tickets, and frequent flyer, the economic backbone of the airline industry). Now I use video conferencing 90% of the time and I fly only if it is absolutely necessary. You can multiply that by most every executive in the country. Flying is simply not worth the hassle, and I don't appreciate having to leave my checked baggage unlocked either. Maybe this is why just about every industry trade show is folding its tent.

I'll tell you another story about the kind of idiots in airport security. I had open heart surgery about five years ago, so I have a stainless steel cable in my chest that held my ribs together until the bones grew back together. I always set off the metal detector, and they have me step aside to be checked with a wand. One time I told the guy checking me about the surgery and the cable. He passed the wand by my chest and it indicated metal. This jerk then started poking me hard in the chest repeatedly. I told him after the third poke that he was one poke away from being carried to the hospital. He took one look in my eyes, and as many have before him, he backed away. His supervisor came running over and when he saw my face he quickly apologized, and sent me on to the boarding gate. The guard will never know how close he came to dying that day.

If you think you are safer flying because of airport security the way its practiced today, you are a fool.

Shelly

There is no doubt the security in this country needs to be better. They're underpaid, under trained dumbasses.

It has to get better, but what's the alternative? Hop on board without a question just as easily as I do my car? No screening nothing? Is taking off my shoes looking for bombs unreasonable? So we can let shoe bombers through? Is coming aboard with a bomb in my bag cool because I know they're not going to check it?

What's the answer? You have to give up these certain freedoms to be safer in the air.

Am I wrong?

Visit the Basement

You want security? Require every able passenger to travel armed.

Shelly

are you serious?

Visit the Basement

I would be. An armed society is a polite society. Live in one and you will see it for yourself.

Maybe this is akin to the theory that most drivers would slow down and drive much more safely and considerately if all safety devices such as seat belts, air bags, padded dashes, etc were removed and replaced with a Samurai sword welded to the middle of the steering wheel pointing directly at the driver's heart.

Jim.

Bingo! Great post!

>I'm sorry Ed I didn't know flying and taking a bus was a >right, I thought it was a privledge.

Do you know what a "Lackey" is? A “sycophant? Look it up.

Inferred and implied in the Constitution is the absolute right to go where and when you damn well please unimpeded.
.I’ll overlook the fact you are dense and failed to note my own admission things have changed in America since 9-11.
When I am not engaged in travel using the public transportation mode, I still can go wherever I damn well please. I have the right to go from place to place unimpeded unless of course other humans are where I am going. I stop at crowded Interstate restaurants and I don’t find one cop or screening device. Strange, since that to involves the traveling public.

>And these searches are usually something you agree to when >you pay your ticket.

Lackey talk. What has happened is ordinary Americans don’t like to be arbitrarily or rudely singled-out for arbitrary, mindless inspections.
>
>If you're complaining about being searched or having your >shoes searched. Then move to a different country.

YGFY. I was born here and I, like you, have the right (maybe more, since I served and bled (twice) for this country) to say and complain as much as any person here; Lackey.

I would >gladly take my shoes off for inspection for security reasons.
>I'm sure any intelligent minded person would feel the same way >for that added security because who knows when the next shoe >bomber is on your plane.

What “plane”? They make you take your shoes off at the Bus terminal-stupid.

>On 9/11 america was being held hostage by a freaking box >cutter and you're whining about added security and taking your >shoes off?!

What “whine”? You can try to put a spin on my right to observe what is happening, but that does not make it a “whine”; Lackey.
And a mere box cutter would not frighten real men, like on Aircraft four.

Worse, if the threat was a bomb, any American with a modicum of sense or courage would factor in that they were going to die and take action.

>Blaming your personal whiny gripes about searches and taking >your shoes off on a right wing agenda is lame. Get a grip >man!

It is your own puny brain that brought the two disparate subjects together to make your rant.
Worse, you have fastened your insipid response on the shoes when the larger issue is or was our loss of freedoms since 9-11.
But as per usual, lackeys like yourself can’t think things through or reach cogent conclusions.

Ed start making sense and we'll talk. For now however you are beginning to sound senile. Sorry man.

It would be a waste of my time to go through your post and pick it apart and show you where you are wrong? But why? I don't need to. I know I'm right! I usually am. That's always been my mantra.

Visit the Basement

And here I thought this was a discussion about the Patriot Act; now that I know it's a dick waving contest designed solely for people to convince themselves they are right and show everyone else how inferior they are, allow me to say that my penis is gigantic and the entire forum should watch out because they may step on it. Not that it would hurt because it's coated in titanium and diamond, but it might scuff the surface.

"Mantra" I believe thats a mindless word to take you out of reality, isn't it?

Ray

>But as per usual, lackeys like yourself can’t think things
>through or reach cogent conclusions.
>


Ed, you can forget it. He is lost in his own dillusions of grandeur. Many times I've seen him post here w/ total assinine statements, it's pointless to try and argue with him.

>>But as per usual, lackeys like yourself can’t think things
>>through or reach cogent conclusions.
>>
>
>
>Ed, you can forget it. He is lost in his own dillusions of
>grandeur. Many times I've seen him post here w/ total
>assinine statements, it's pointless to try and argue with
>him.

Agreed.

>ED: >"Until 9-11, we Americans had, and certainly felt we
>had-carte
>>blanche, unassailable freedoms".
>
>AL: "Read "Lost Rights" or talk to any competent lawyer. You
>are a fool if you actually believe what you wrote".
>
>I usually don't talk to Right Wing Loonies, but in this
>case...
>
>Every American until 9-11 thought we had bullet-proof
>freedoms, bought with Chuchill’s..."blood, sweat and
>toil". We all thought others in the world lived in
>conditions that were, or are, suppressive of thier God-given
>freedoms.


Just because you thought it doesn't mean it was true. 9/11 made reality a little more visible. It didn't change reality.

>>ED: >"Until 9-11, we Americans had, and certainly felt we
>>had-carte
>>>blanche, unassailable freedoms".
>>
>>AL: "Read "Lost Rights" or talk to any competent lawyer.
>You
>>are a fool if you actually believe what you wrote".
>>
>>I usually don't talk to Right Wing Loonies, but in this
>>case...
>>
>>Every American until 9-11 thought we had bullet-proof
>>freedoms, bought with Chuchill’s..."blood, sweat and
>>toil". We all thought others in the world lived in
>>conditions that were, or are, suppressive of thier
>God-given
>>freedoms.
>
>
>Just because you thought it doesn't mean it was true. 9/11
>made reality a little more visible. It didn't change
>reality.
___________________________________
This "reality" you speak about was someplace else other than America prior to 9-11. But then, you're of that crowd who truly believes in world-wide conspiracies and the “…spread of Communism”.
Until 9-11, you only saw one or two cops at airports, and then, only in major cities. Now they hang out at places like Laramie, Wyoming. Why? Or Peoria, Illinois. Why do we need the Army in Goodland, Kansas? That is far from the old norm and you know it.

But if you’re inferring that “reality” was somewhat more intrusive than now, give me an example?

Or are you talking that “Black Helicopter” nonsense?

Really, Ed?

So tell me, what place was it that you were living where the US Government couldn't sieze your property without due process? Because everywhere in the United States that was true from about 1970.

Or how about the rights to do with your property what you will? You are familiar with zoning laws, with the controls of the Secretary of Agriculture, the FDA, the USDA, Customs, the International Trade Commission, the Postal Service, the EPA, the BATF, Social Security Administration, FCC etc.

Or maybe you are familiar with the "freedom of contract"?
Look into the licensing laws and regulations, trade and professional associations (not all, but certainly some), unions, "fair labor" laws, labor regulations, prohibitions against home labor, the NLRB, transportation policy... the list goes on and on and on...

What about subsidies? Where is the freedom?

Shall we look at "equal opportunity" as practiced under government regulation?

How about entrapment? Unlawful searches? Are you familiar with the details of the government agency illegal conduct at Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge?

How about the Supreme Court decision (1980) that decided that public officials could not be trespassing on your land, even if you had "No Trespassing" signs clearly displayed?

Read the book, Ed. It was written before 9/11. You just might find out that you had a whole lot fewer rights than you assumed you did.

Alas Al, most of what you say is true. There has been a slow erosion of our rights for a long time. I don't believe in anarchy, and some regulation is proper to protect the freedoms and property of the people from those who would exercise rights at the expense of their neighbors rights. Zoning laws, laws regulating the purity and efficacy of food and medicines offered for sale, and other such safeguards come to mind as being needed to protect society.

The erosion of personal liberties in bits and pieces make it easier for a government to fool the people into believing that bigger invasions of rights are for our best interest, and the gullibility of the increasingly poorly educated, hedonistic masses, allows the loss of the freedoms so many of us have fought and died for.

There are some good and reasonable things in the Patriot Act, but much of it is deliberate assault upon our constitutional rights by elements in government who would be happier in a totalitarian state. They justify their actions by believing they are carrying out Gods will. Not my God.

If you read the original draft of the Declaration of Independence in the sentence that reads, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" Jefferson crossed out the word inalienable as was originally written, and substituted the word unalienable.

The difference in meaning is profound! Inalienable rights can not be taken away by anyone, but unalienable rights can be neither taken away, nor given away by the possessor of those rights.

This is one reason I feel so strongly that we must get rid of the present administration and the misguided crew it brought with it.

Shelly

Where do you stand on drug laws? BTW, before you make some claims (like someone here has made in the past on this topic), I know how you stand (or at least stood) on recreational drugs.
You know, the ones that we lost our 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th over?
Did you really think you could erode some people's rights and not have that spill over into everyone's rights?

I don't see much difference in what the Patriot Act does and what has been allowed to go on for 40+ years. Wire taps, search and seizure, due process, watching certain groups and all that other crap was allowed by you in order to fight the war on drugs.
How about if we save some children and burn some wacko religionists in the process?
Or maybe we need to save the Black Man and place agent provocateurs in with "hate" groups?

OK, so you've finally seen the light.
I'm having a tough time deciding if the old saying should be allowed to come back to haunt you, "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.",
or if the poem "They Came For The Jews" applies,
or if this time you actually do see this as a rights issue.

I think if you check the record, Kerry voted for the Patriot Act. It was a bi-partisan issue, the problem runs a lot deeper than your partisan politics.
Instead of acting to remove it, which as a Senator Kerry has the power to attemp, he's holding it over our heads as a campaign promise. Perhaps he needs to check the powers of the job he's running for, or perhaps he's for it and removing it is just a campaign promise.

Because of that partisan politics, I think this is an issue of political convenience with many. You didn't care when they were wire tapping a drug dealer and stealing their property. You didn't care when witnesses weren't required to show up in court. You didn't care when someone was arrested, held, property siezed and no charges were ever pressed or court date set. You didn't care when it was the government inciting the crime but arresting their victims.
No, you only care now that you can use it as a political issue against a political figure that you didn't like long before he ever took office.

This really shouldn't be a reply to you, because there are many around that are only using this as a partisan issue when it is not.

"I don't have much problem with the Patriot Act. If for no other reason than our elected representatives passed it into law."

And there's no contradiction between this and your post #41?

Aren't your feet getting painful? You keep shooting yourself in them.

You don't get it, Paul. Most of the points I brought up in the post to Ed aren't law. They are regulations. There is no one to pressure, no one to vote out of office, no one to vote in to repeal the regualation.

Paul, you're an idiot who needs to learn to open his eyes and dump your prejudices.

All regulations originate from laws. Somewhere back there is a law which empowers the regulator.

And coming from you any criticism of anyone else's prejudices, real or imagined, is just plain funny.

Well, Paul, I am so glad you are sure about all regulations resulting from laws.

How about a bet? Say $1500 Australian?

You'll lose by the way.

Paul, you're an idiot who needs to learn to open his eyes and dump your prejudices.


Interesting shift of person there. You become incoherent when you get a bit worked up!

I'm not worked up. How about taking the bet?

God, you're predictable.

You fell for it hook line and sinker. Go for the throwaway because it gives you a chance to avoid the serious post (#81). Because you have no answer for it.

"Or Peoria, Illinois"

You mean the home of Al Qaeda member Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri?
Yeah, you're right, we're just a back water with no need for any of that protection from 9-11 stuff. Why should they bother with the Peoria Airport. I'm sure he never used it and he was probably working alone.

I wonder why there is a need for cops at back water airports.

Or I could make the same claim heard when us right wing loonies were trying to warn people before, "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about."

>Your question was answered long ago by a man far wiser than
>than I am.
>
>Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain
>security will not have, nor do they deserve, either
>one.
> -- Thomas Jefferson.
>
>Shelly....That says it all!

Roprea,THe Patiot Act,as a whole will allow(empower) authorities to terrorize the very society it is designed to safeguard and instill well-being. It is based upon the use of "statistcal inferece probabilities" as a tool of decision which negates the absolute intention of protecting personal rights granted by the Constitution. It is so simple and obvious it is hard 'not to comprehend' this aspect of such legilation. The reason you did not grasp this is due to you have never been personally subjected to being "FALSELY ACCUSSED". As for being around highly educated people,perhaps reading classic literature and really understanding it might be helpful to stimulate the ability to analyze such documents with a bit more clarity.Have a nice day!

Welcome to the forum, although this might not be the best time to jump in on this thread

Dave

Dell 8300 Dimension
Pentium 4
W XP Home


www.woodenpropeller.com

Welcome to the forum.

What you said sounds very nice, but it does not help me to understand why it is wrong.

It is wrong because the very acts of the government post-9/11 (pushing expanded "patriot" act powers, the "patriot" act itself, things like "secure flight", continuing to fund a lot of the programs that were - supposedly - discontinued when the T.I.A program was "shut down" after a storm of protest, their absolutley un-relenting drive to have what they want, regardless of the opinions, desire or will of the American people themselves) are worse than any threat we might face from terrorism because the methods proposed, implied and employed will shift us from what it actually means to be an American - with a government that's supposed to serve not subjugate it's population - to a government that "rules" by executive order, by mis-direction and by subterfuge.

It is not right for the public to have successfully killed "patriotII" only to have it come back as a re-named bill, set of bills, or as various items "slid in" with totally un-related legislation.

It is not right for CAPPSII to come back at us again re-named as "SecureFlight".

It is not right for the government to be clamoring for the right to kill off the "sunset provisions" of the original "patriot" act when those sunset provisions were specifically written that way to prevent abuses of those provisions to start with!

Listen, the people of the United States have clearly let their true wishes in regard to these matters be known (when clearly presented with the facts of the potential for abuse involved) every single time they've had the chance - why does the government try to railroad these things down our throats anyway?

Why do they employ such slimy tactics to do so?

This is not the way I want my government to be, how I want them to act - I want them to adhere to the Constitution and Bill of Rights as written, work within the pre-9/11 legal and legislative framework and to serve and not subjugate us!

They do not need secret dossiers on innocent American ciizens with which to track us and document our lives, the content of which we can't even find out about, much less correct if wrong - but that seems to be the entire thrust of what they're doing lately.

If this doesn't all seem "wrong" to you....man, I really don't know what else to tell you.

Nowhere in my concept of what it means to live in America or be an American does this kind of thing fit in. Pete

Thanx for the welcome. As far as their being 'a best time to get involved' was at some point was before my brother died,defending himself against this type of legislation. so I have been reading PC911 for just a short couple of years,like all the great articles,and so on. When I read this topic,or moreso the question about The Patriot Act,it hit a nerve based on reality that I hope to put into perspective. The results I did not like and just for those who read this I have a patriotic nature,I have a love for this country, and even told my brother he was paranoid. I have gone through some of his paperwork and will not encourage anyone to go against this, 'odds are you will loose one way or another'. nuff said.

>and will not encourage anyone to go against this,
>'odds are you will loose one way or another'. nuff said.

I totally disagree.

The only possible chance we have to either totally avert or at least minimize the impact of all of this is to let (or continue to let) our voices be heard at every opportunity. To form intelligent opinions and then act on those opinions by contacting our Reps, following how they vote on what we're concerned with (and letting them know that) and then voting our convictions.

While our voices still matter at all.

The fact that you would infer what you have - or that Americans should be afraid of their government - simply highlights what's "wrong" with this entire scenario. American citizens voicing their opinions, or trying to change things legally, shouldn't have to be afraid of their own government. (I believe that's another symptom of totalitarian government's, isn't it?). Pete

>and will not encourage anyone to go against this,
>'odds are you will loose one way or another'. nuff said.

I agree with Spy1 on his comment to you. Ya See, that's the great rub... the current regime aka Bush and friends want you to beleve you are helpless against the tide... that the american people are too dumbed down to believe they can make an impact. I very much agree with Spy1 and we must voice our displeasure/opinion every chance we can get.

If we continue to wallow in dispair and hopelessness, we have essentially given away all our freedom and let them win. If you are not active in politics or don't feel like writing to your local senator, you can atleast VOTE - something that 1/2 the voting population did not do the last election.

"and don't give us the anti-Bush/Republican rhetoric that we can get anywhere on the Internet"

>"and don't give us the anti-Bush/Republican rhetoric that
>we can get anywhere on the Internet"

Yeah great Myk, how does that repeating go? ABB... ABB.... Sound good enough fer ya?

Sorry, I have no idea what "ABB" means.

When you start blaming a bipartsan issue on a single party you are showing your prejudice. Prejudices are formed without knowledge or thought. They are rarely rational.

>When you start blaming a bipartsan issue on a single party
>you are showing your prejudice. Prejudices are formed without
>knowledge or thought.

Hmmmm...... sort of like the pot calling the kettle black eh?

>Sorry, I have no idea what "ABB" means.
>

I'll spell it out fer ya 'ANYONE but Bush'. That means democrat or republican. Of course being the "blind" democrat you infer me to be, I will of course take Kerry before I vote for that Nader who? guy.

Me partisan? AWFMG (Anyone Who's For My Guns), but at least that is a real issue and not a bipartisan issue that I'm blaming on one party's candidate because of ABB.
Like I said, your prejudices are formed without knowledge or thought.

Trust me, if Bush would've signed the assault weapons ban had it went to his desk, I would not care who won. I would be voting Libertarian or I would not vote for President.
Call me a one issue voter, but at least it is a real issue.

>Like I said, your prejudices are formed without knowledge or
>thought.

You don't know the first thing about me Myk, remember that when you assume... you come out looking like a real ASS. But then again, if the shoe fits...


>Call me a one issue voter, but at least it is a real issue.

Just one Myk? Why is that?... does your brain capacity limit your thought process that it can only focus on one topic? Or just because you walk around with horse blinder on? What a small world you must live in.

And your own blindness doesn't call "ABB" a single issue?
You are a moron.