Patriot Act Part Deux

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]vroom wrote:
Zeb,

I’ve figured it out. You are anti-Freedom. Conservatives are simply anti-Freedom.

How simple. I figure, let any law abiding person or entity do what it wants within the law… otherwise known as freedom. You attack me for it.

How you can be anti-Freedom without being anti-American, I don’t know. If you figure out, let me know. I think we have a lot of anti-Freedom crusaders out there right now.[/quote]

Congrats vroom, you have not broken your streak of being wrong! How many is that in a row?

I am against any person, or organization which seeks to tear down what has been legitimate tradition for many years. I love freedom, but like any important “gift” it comes with responsibility.

Try hard to understand that America is not Canada. This is a more conservative country. Always has been. Stick around you’ll get used to it.

Bush-3000 counties Kerry-500 counties

Where do you live now?

22

See Zeb, you said it, you are against anything that is against what you feel are important traditions. Too bad that goes directly against the concepts of freedom that America is based on.

Ha! And you feel the need to tell me that we are discussing America, the land of the “free if it doesn’t go against Zeb’s values”. You aren’t conservative, you are authoritarian.

Welcome to my new motto – I think you might have heard of it before. Live free or die!

Your traditions are your problem, go practice them to your hearts content, just don’t expect “me” to.

– If it isn’t clear I’m just using myself as a stand in, it’s not like I’m actually living in the US. Hopefully that little concept doesn’t distract you from the point.

23

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Hey ProfessorX!!!

Happy Thanksgiving!!!

Ever get tired of constant whining?

How about an alternative to the Patriot Act that is feasible?

Are you capable of anything but criticism?

Please tell me how we should weed out the terrorists.

I am very curious.

Thanks!!!

JeffR[/quote]

I am capable of much aside from criticism, HOWEVER, this is the political section of this board and the Patriot Act falls into that category. Should I pretend that I agree with it just to make you happy? An overhaul of the Patriot Act was what Kerry supported. I voted for Kerry with that as one of my reasons. Does this offend you somehow? Clearly you even have doubts about where the Patriot Act is headed by even asking me about alternatives. The real question is, will you hide your head in the sand simply because it was proposed by Republicans or will you openly discuss it? I chose the second option regardless of how you try to insult me for it. As far as “weeding out the terrorists”, did Sadam or Osama blow up that office building in Oklahoma? I have the clear understanding that there will always be those who have some kind of grudge against America. Taking away the civil right of all Americans to get to them is not what I would recommend. Maybe you are fine with this idea…at least, until it is used against you. Question, do you ever get tired of being a hand puppet? Do you have any thoughts of your own or do you simply fall in line with whatever your “party affiliation” comes up with? Even if I were republican I would be against an act that gives the government this much power. They obviously did a great job of getting you to believe that anyone who disagrees with anything this administration does is against…how did you put it?..ah yeah, “most Americans”.

Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving to you too. I hope you prayed for understanding and wisdom along with the thanks for what you have gained this past year. That is, unless you believe that you could get no better in that department.

24

Read it vroom:

“Freedom like any important gift comes with great responsibility.”

Does that concept scare you? Does it give you license to bend my words? I hope it does neither.

You are an ultra-liberal Canadian through and through…I have no problem with that. Again your traditions are different than ours are.

25

ProfessorX,

You still haven’t offered an alternative.

What exactly would you propose?

By the way, just saying, “I voted for Kerry” doesn’t equal a solution.

His candidacy/platform was not viable or realistic.

So my original question still holds: Can you do anything but criticise?

If the answer is no, please be a stand up guy and admit it. Then go on to say that things in the real world are often more complicated than they may seem on the DNC website.

Have a great day!!!

JeffR

26

Zeb,

Did it ever occur to you that I am exercising that responsibility by fighting against moves to restrict freedoms?

People fight and die for freedom, it is not something to be given away lightly, even to your own currently benevolent goverment.

I’m not the ultra-liberal idiot you think I am Zeb.

Live free or die!

27

[quote]JeffR wrote:
ProfessorX,

You still haven’t offered an alternative.

What exactly would you propose?

By the way, just saying, “I voted for Kerry” doesn’t equal a solution.

His candidacy/platform was not viable or realistic.

So my original question still holds: Can you do anything but criticise?

If the answer is no, please be a stand up guy and admit it. Then go on to say that things in the real world are often more complicated than they may seem on the DNC website.

Have a great day!!!

JeffR[/quote]

One way to amend it is to throw out those propositions like being able to hold a person without bail with no time guideline for as long as is wanted by the holding authority simply because someone said they ahve ties to a terrorist act or organization (under this act, proof is not needed, only the suspicion…which basically means you are at risk as well). Also, get rid of the portion that allows free reign to check into private information and perform surveillance (ie. wire taps and other investigative devices) without informing anyone or needing a court issued warrant (this allows the investigating organization to completely avoid the court system where before any info found this way would be inadmissable). I have mentioned this for a while now so you seem to be a little off when you act as if I have just reported this info without giving any opinions on specifics. Oh, that’s right, that would require you to read.

28

vroom:

Well…you are now half right.

29

ProfessorX wrote:

“One way to amend it is to throw out those propositions like being able to hold a person without bail with no time guideline for as long as is wanted by the holding authority simply because someone said they ahve ties to a terrorist act or organization (under this act, proof is not needed, only the suspicion…which basically means you are at risk as well). Also, get rid of the portion that allows free reign to check into private information and perform surveillance (ie. wire taps and other investigative devices) without informing anyone or needing a court issued warrant (this allows the investigating organization to completely avoid the court system where before any info found this way would be inadmissable).”

Again, you are just saying which parts you object to. You state exactly zero alternatives.

Start with video surveillance. How does one do it so that the bad guys aren’t tipped off?

Please explain in some detail how YOU would do the surveillance?

Then move on to detaining suspected terrorists. How would you do it?

Please don’t type more examples of things you object to without alternatives.

You are right about one thing, I don’t read all your posts. Some are bad enough to cause actual physical pain.

Thanks!!!

JeffR

30

[quote]JeffR wrote:

Again, you are just saying which parts you object to. You state exactly zero alternatives.[/quote]

Wow. I stated exactly what I would do. I would get rid of those propositions. Are you having trouble keeping up or just TRYING to find something to argue about? Why don’t you show me what you would do?

[quote]
Start with video surveillance. How does one do it so that the bad guys aren’t tipped off?[/quote]

The same way it has been done for decades, through warrants which then allow any evidence found to be used in trial. The way it is set up now, they can completely circumvent the judicial system. You think this is a good thing?

[quote]
Please explain in some detail how YOU would do the surveillance?[/quote]

Read above. In fact, read slowly.

[quote]
Then move on to detaining suspected terrorists. How would you do it?[/quote]

The same way criminals are detained now. Agan, why do you want to go around the judicial system? I doubt you were for any judicial changes whenever minorities made protests about being mishandled by it. Why the change now?

[quote]
Please don’t type more examples of things you object to without alternatives.[/quote]

Again, alternatives were posted. Abolish those acts. You appear to be searching hard for some way to argue but it isn’t working for you. It is now your turn to show what you would do and why.

31

ProX: You make very points here. What was wrong with the system before 9/11? Is it too hard to get warrants for everything?

I think that we as a country wanted to see some action on the part of the administration after 9/11 that shows us that it’s going to get harder for the terrorists to do a repeat performance of New York. It can be argued that the Patriot Act does just that. It will be MUCH easier for our respective intelligence and investigative agencies to collect data without the ponderous oversight of the judicial branch. The burden of proof and intent is removed, for the most part, and now we can get spied on with relative impunity.

This is the litmus test for this thing, I think. What if the FBI nabs a bunch of terrorist guys planning some kind of spectacular attack a la WTC towers, and there’s no other way we would have been clued into them except for the fact that the Patriot Act made it possible for the surveillance, etc.? Will it have been worth it?

There can be no doubt that we are giving up some civil protections under this Patriot Act. Anybody can see that under the wrong kind of management, this kind of authority we’re giving up to the goverment could be abused. Then again, they could abuse any kind of authority they have over us, and sometimes they do. This is a tricky one. I guess it comes down to how much we trust our government right now. Evidently, some folks around here don’t trust the Bush administration that much! :slight_smile:

Seriously now, I hope that a re-organization of our intelligence and investigative agencies makes it easier for them to do their jobs. Maybe a watered-down Patriot Act would be good enough for a sleeker and more efficient CIA and FBI to nab those evil-doers…

32

ProfessorX:

Ok. Now you’ve given me something to work with.

Basically, if I understand you correctly, you are for law enforcement as it was on 9/10/01. I could be wrong, but you don’t seem to understand that stopping these attacks before they happen, requires stepped up surveillance. You have to have the ability to eavesdrop without them knowing it.

Imagine: “We’ve got a warrant to tap your line.” Think they’ll be talking on the line? Nope.

Imagine: “We’ve got a ton of info. on you and you aren’t going anywhere until you talk” That is a deterrant.
Bet people talk much more freely.

Could there be misuse? Yep.

Did 9/10/01 methods work? Nope.

You wrote: “I doubt you were for any judicial changes whenever minorities made protests about being mishandled by it. Why the change now?”

Don’t type trash like this again.

I vehemently disagree with your accusation and your method here.

Have a wonderful day!!!

JeffR

33

[quote]JeffR wrote:

Imagine: “We’ve got a warrant to tap your line.” Think they’ll be talking on the line? Nope.
[/quote]

You don’t have a clue what you are talking about. Even now, no one calls the guys who are being tapped and says, “hey, we are about to tap your line”. With the warrant, the perpetrator does NOT need to be informed, just the judge who approved the warrant due to significant evidence to justify it. That one statement alone shows you are the last person who needs to be speaking up on this topic. Why don’t you allow someone who actually does know what they are talking about to answer for you? I am sure one of your friends will provide a debate worth typing a response for. Sit this one out.

34

Well, my take is a bit different, but basically I’m inclined to agree with Profx on this.

In the short view, beefing up security by removing protections against abusive law enforcement might look good.

In the long view, when the law enforcement officials don’t find themselves so busy fighting against terrorism, they will find ways to use these tools if at all possible.

The problem here seems to be that people on the conservative side jump to the conclusion that those against increasing powers in this way don’t want to fight terrorism effectively. This isn’t so.

With or without massive changes to internal judicial overview 9/11 changed everything. People are more aware of terrorism. More resources are being focused on fighting it.

The CIA and other agencies are getting increased funding. The US is overseas rooting out terrorist strongholds. All of this is happening without removing rights of US citizens.

I urge you to consider the long term effect of removing judicial overview from the efforts of law enforcement. Maybe the enforcement agency you want to put in place existed before with the initials KGB. Seems they didn’t have to worry about the citizens rights very much.

The knee-jerk reaction is that “it will never happen”. However, never is a long time. It won’t happen in your life time, but your children or your children’s children won’t have the same memories to draw from. The events of today will just be some bizarre history lesson.

People speaking out against the administration are obviously suspects, possible terrorist sympathizers, who need investigation. The books they read, the friends they have, the phone calls they make all need to be scrutinized. Anything read, said or done, taken out of context will be enough to have this person put away without due process for as long as needed.

When and if that ever happens, you might be safe, as long as you agree with the administration, but you won’t be free. Anyway, when I personally argue against these steps to fight terrorism, it isn’t because I am soft on terror, don’t leap to that false conclusion.

Live free or die! :wink: