The Patriot act is going to hurt all of us.

[dumpster56]

I keep hearing if you are not doing anything wrong why worry about it.

Well when you head home what do you do at home? Lock your doors and shut your blinds.

Privacy. That is what it is about. The government has no right to bother me or you.

[dex]

Laws such as this expand to encompass more actitivities.
Think about the RICO laws; they were originally passed to get mafia members who were not caught directly in crimes. Now it has been used against many other people.

[bssc]

You must have read that the FBI has abused its authority under the Patriot Act. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031001001.html Don't worry, Big Brother is watching you.

[Gumby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bssc the FBI has abused its authority under the Patriot Act.

What a surprise!

[2B]

I keep wondering why I should care if the FBI looked through all of my library records, web postings, etc. It would certainly be a waste of their time and my taxes. If they find anything they don't like, they still have to go to a court to have anything done to me.

No one questions the IRS's ability to look through any of my records and do whatever they want to do. If they decide I owe $50 million in back taxes and they just sieze all of my assets, I have to go to court to try to get them back. Of course, that is complicated by not having any money for a lawyer.

I have numerous communications with the IRS where they had their heads "where the sun don't shine." I have never talked with the FBI. If they want to worry about who visits "build a nuke in your basement" web sites, I hope they stay on top of the crazies.

[dumpster56]

It seems to be going hand in hand with NOT resettling Iraqis from Iraq now. Just finished watching 60 mins. i have the feeling we do not want the Iraqis who have helped us in Iraq because they are muslims.

security risks.

[eridanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2B I keep wondering why I should care if the FBI looked through all of my library records, web postings, etc. It would certainly be a waste of their time and my taxes. If they find anything they don't like, they still have to go to a court to have anything done to me.

Not if you're a "material witness" or "enemy combatant," according to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eridanus Not if you're a "material witness" or "enemy combatant," according to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

We've been at this for over 4 years. A long time, with a lot of investigative work going on. Wow, these fascists must be locking up Americans by the boatload, huh? How many have these jackbooted thugs locked up without trial? Two or three hundred?

So, how many US citizens have been classified as "enemy combatants" and denied a speedy trial? The answer: Exactly one (Jose Padilla).
How many US citizens have been held, for even a short time, as material witnesses in terror investigations: less than 20 (some were later brought to trial).

Is this something we need to watch closely? Yes!
Is this something that is beng abused now? I don't think so.

[eridanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem We've been at this for over 4 years. A long time, with a lot of investigative work going on. Wow, these fascists must be locking up Americans by the boatload, huh? How many have these jackbooted thugs locked up without trial? Two or three hundred?

The point is that it can be done legally, without charges and indefinitely. In fact, you might've missed the news last week. The FBI did abuse its powers and did break the law with regard to Patriot Act measures. So, yeah, the Patriot Act is being abused now.

It's great that you trust our federal government but I'll side with the Framers -- give the state too much power and it'll abuse it, each and every time.

[Gumby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem We've been at this for over 4 years. A long time, with a lot of investigative work going on. Wow, these fascists must be locking up Americans by the boatload, huh? How many have these jackbooted thugs locked up without trial? Two or three hundred? So, how many US citizens have been classified as "enemy combatants" and denied a speedy trial? The answer: Exactly one (Jose Padilla). How many US citizens have been held, for even a short time, as material witnesses in terror investigations: less than 20 (some were later brought to trial). Is this something we need to watch closely? Yes! Is this something that is beng abused now? I don't think so.

If it happens to you, you'll think even one is too many.

[lets-retire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby If it happens to you, you'll think even one is too many.

Since our criminal justice system has wrongly convicted several thousand people it is not good. We need to get rid of it and go with something better. You can develop it, but the requirements are:

It must be able to convict everyone who committed a crime.
It must not convict anybody not guilty of a crime.
It must not interfere with the lives of normal mostly honest citizens.
It must provide Justice for all of the victims of crime.
It must do it quickly.

It is impossible. Nothing is going to be perfect when dealing with an element that lies, cheats, and does not have any respect for laws. It is the best we have right now, that includes the Patriot Act.

[Gumby]

..

[samclem]

Then you should appreciate the beauty of the present system, complete with flaws! If a person doesn't go to trial, they can't be convicted!

[dylar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem Then you should appreciate the beauty of the present system, complete with flaws! If a person doesn't go to trial, they can't be convicted!

They can, of course, spend life in prison, and be continually tortured, without ever even being charged with a crime, on the wholly unsubstantiated claim of the executive that they are an enemy combatant.

The news recently is that the government claims that they've lost the videos of Jose Padilla being tortured interrogated. They have the one's they took of him taking showers, but somehow managed to misplace the other videos of the greatest threat to America's security ever.

[lets-retire]

I agree, but if the only criminal to go free killed you husband/wife/daughter/son, that would be one too many who went free. The media would have a field day about the tragedy of the criminal justice system and how terribly flawed it is. The point of my post is the results can always be better, but the implementation of policies/procedures to do that will always cause other problems. There is no perfect system, but I believe we have the closest one to perfect. A glass of water can always take another drop of water, it's only a drop, until it can't.

[Joss]

"The problem is that this statement applies to the current administration in Washington. It's one thing when the criminals do this -- we expect it. It's quite another when the government does it -- we deserve better."

LOL! Truly spoken like the last administration was a model of propriety.

Every administration has done as it felt was necessary in times of war. People have always bitched about it. Lincoln got more bitching than Bush ever has. So did his Sec of War.... well probably about equal with Rumsfeld. And wasn't it Jackson that pointed out that the Supreme Court had no army, so how could it force him to follow it's opinions?

Our net sum of freedoms is diminished during wars, and partially restored in the following peace. Each turn of the screw, we find that more of us are willing to trade a tiny bit more freedom for safety. Government gets a tad larger. Freedom gets a tad smaller.

The problem with our situation now, though, is that our path is so politicized, that it seems ALL our politicians care more about themselves and their party's success than what happens to the Country.

And the media is just out there stirring the pot and selling tickets.

[2B]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joss Every administration has done as it felt was necessary in times of war. People have always bitched about it. Lincoln got more bitching than Bush ever has. So did his Sec of War.... well probably about equal with Rumsfeld. And wasn't it Jackson that pointed out that the Supreme Court had no army, so how could it force him to follow it's opinions?

Be careful bringing up Lincoln,it just causes me trouble. Something about the first repub president upsets certain people. Your Jackson reference concerning his ignoring the Supreme's ruling and forcing the trail of tears was interesting. I can't recall another president that totally ignored a ruling so blatantly. And nothing happened to him. Of course, he was the first dem president so I guess that was ok.

[dumpster56]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire Since our criminal justice system has wrongly convicted several thousand people it is not good. We need to get rid of it and go with something better. You can develop it, but the requirements are: It must be able to convict everyone who committed a crime. It must not convict anybody not guilty of a crime. It must not interfere with the lives of normal mostly honest citizens. It must provide Justice for all of the victims of crime. It must do it quickly. It is impossible. Nothing is going to be perfect when dealing with an element that lies, cheats, and does not have any respect for laws. It is the best we have right now, that includes the Patriot Act.

You know what the laws on the books pre 9/11 were strong enough to stop the terrorists. the problem was and still is, we are a free society. The doors are open to any illegal jerk who sneaks into the country.

Sorry but the guys who were watching the country on 9/11 were well sleeping.

Then the people who were at the airports on 9/11 were the hourly wage workers who with little training let the animals with knives on the planes.

I still remember the day in july 2000 when I was going thru security at newark airport to be greeted by Voncelle, one of my students who had graduated high school the year before and was now working the xray machine. sorry she was a nice kid but dumb as a stump. even failed health class.

Nuff said.

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy888 You know what the laws on the books pre 9/11 were strong enough to stop the terrorists. the problem was and still is, we are a free society. The doors are open to any illegal jerk who sneaks into the country. Sorry but the guys who were watching the country on 9/11 were well sleeping. Then the people who were at the airports on 9/11 were the hourly wage workers who with little training let the animals with knives on the planes. I still remember the day in july 2000 when I was going thru security at newark airport to be greeted by Voncelle, one of my students who had graduated high school the year before and was now working the xray machine. sorry she was a nice kid but dumb as a stump. even failed health class. Nuff said.

While we need security at the airports, that's not likely to stop the next attack. The next one could be a suitcase dirty bomb in a crowded arena. It could be a Ryder truck filled with explosives under a skyscraper (again). It could be any one of thousands of scenarios in this free country we live in. Law enforcement (and other branches of the government) are and need to be on the offensive, rather than simply fighting on the defensive. They need strong investigative tools to do this--to include soem that we haven't used before. Yes, we need to be sure to keep a vigilant eye on this, and it is good that folks are squawking about the little flap over at the FBI concerning the national security letters (which will probably turn out to be sloppy attention to admin details, not a scandal). But let's keep this all in perspective--talk of gulags full of Americans is just not accurate.

For those who are truly concerned about the civil rights of Americans, the best approach is NOT to push back on every perceived infringement of rights. Instead, the best policy is to push for strong investigative and security tools that pose the least risk to individual liberties (that is, which offer a lot of security benefit for the intrusiveness they carry). Why? Because if/when another attack occurs, there will be a wave of crackdowns dwarfing what we've seen to date. Preventing such an attack is the best way to preserve liberties. There's a long audit trail of which legislators opposed providing effective police tools--these guys would be highly susceptible to the public backlash.

Also--defensive measures can be just as intrusive as offensive ones. Are you ready for random police checkpoints?

[JohnEyles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem ... the best approach is NOT to push back on every perceived infringement of rights.

If you say so, but I take our rights pretty seriously. There are people out there
fighting and dying to protect them. (Agree or disagree with the Iraq or Afghan
war, but that's ultimately what they're doing).