- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,988
- Reaction score
- 10
- Location
- Pasadena, California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
SourceCNN.com said:EWARK, New Jersey (AP) -- The USA Patriot Act, in the name of fighting terrorism, allows the government to find out which books and Internet sites a person has seen. It lets investigators secretly search homes and monitor phone calls and e-mail.
Now, officials in the wealthy New York City suburb of Summit are using the law to justify forcing homeless people to leave a train station -- an action that sparked a $5 million federal lawsuit by a homeless man.
Richard Kreimer, who filed the lawsuit in March after being kicked out of the train station, said the Patriot Act defense makes no sense.
"Unless they've been smoking those funny cigarettes, I can't see how my civil lawsuit has anything to do with the Patriot Act," said Kreimer, 55, who is acting as his own attorney.
But Summit officials argue they are protected by a provision regarding "attacks and other violence against mass transportation systems." Town attorney Harry Yospin, who did not return calls seeking comment Tuesday and Wednesday, has used the law as one of more than a dozen defenses in the case.
Edward Barocas, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, said the Patriot Act defense is weak: "Nothing in the Patriot Act lets them kick homeless people out of train stations."
The U.S. Justice Department also criticized Summit's use of the law.
"That represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Patriot Act is," spokesman Kevin Madden said Wednesday. "The Patriot Act is a law enforcement tool to identify and track terrorists and stop them from further attacks on America. To apply it to this case is, shall we say, an overreaching application of the law."
Naughty Nurse said:The Patriot Act sound terrifying - what is this world coming to?
debate_junkie said:http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html
Naughty, if it sounds terrifying, there you go. It's a more frightening read then a Stephen King novel.
NoobieDoobieDo said:Freedom is over rated.
I missed it, which part was terrifying?debate_junkie said:http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html
Naughty, if it sounds terrifying, there you go. It's a more frightening read then a Stephen King novel.
This isn't a partisan issue, it is an intersting legal challenge, which personally I think will go the way of civil libertarians. The Patriot Act was not meant for this purpose and thus his removal will likely be thrown out.Fantasea said:It's amazing. Folks who behave as responsible citizens have no reason to fear the Patriot Act. Folks who behave irresponsibly complain when it nails them.
Why is it that the socialist-lib-dems and their media apologists never mention the fact that the vote in the House of Representatives was 357 yeas and 66 nays; and in the Senate, the vote was 98 yeas and 1 nay?
Anyone care to calculate the number of Democratic yeas in that total of 455 yeas?
Anyone know the name of the single Senator who voted in opposition to the Patriot Act?
ShamMol said:You may either find this outrageous, are neutral or get a kick out of it.
Source
Frankly, this case is kinda interesting insofar as it might be a great legal challenge to the Patriot Act which hasn't really been done effectively. I bet that the court gets amicus curiae briefs like crazy from the Justice Dept. saying to rule that in this case alone it is unconstitution, but that it has no bearing whatsoever on other cases. Just my bet..
galenrox said:Alright, **** the democrats, they're worthless too.
It doesn't matter whether or not responsible citizens have nothing to fear from the Patriot Act, that still doesn't ****ing justify it! It ass rapes a whole lot of the things that Americans hold dear, along with a large part of a little thing called DUE PROCESS!
You see, I don't like the idea that my phone could be tapped for no reason. I don't like the fact that a police officer no longer needs probable cause to search my car, and I don't like the fact that if at some point I decided to read that the government may check on me based on my choices!
And I don't like the idea that if I'm law abiding that I should be ok with this. I am fairly law abiding, quite a bit more than most people my age, and I am still not ok with this! I am not ok with this because it takes America the dream and turns it into America, the bastardized hollow shell of what it once was, and I'm supposed to be ****ing OK with this? In your ****ing dreams!
First, let me say that I am, indeed, sorry about your speech impediment. Perhaps, if you seek help, you can have it corrected. It's really a distraction and greatly diminishes the merit of anything you say. A few well chosen verbs, adverbs, and adjectives in place of the juvenile invective would improve the readability of your posts and make them appear to be considerably more sensible as well as cordial.galenrox said:Quote:
Alright, **** the democrats, they're worthless too.Originally Posted by Fantasea
It's amazing. Folks who behave as responsible citizens have no reason to fear the Patriot Act. Folks who behave irresponsibly complain when it nails them.
Why is it that the socialist-lib-dems and their media apologists never mention the fact that the vote in the House of Representatives was 357 yeas and 66 nays; and in the Senate, the vote was 98 yeas and 1 nay?
Anyone care to calculate the number of Democratic yeas in that total of 455 yeas?
Anyone know the name of the single Senator who voted in opposition to the Patriot Act?
It doesn't matter whether or not responsible citizens have nothing to fear from the Patriot Act, that still doesn't ****ing justify it! It ass rapes a whole lot of the things that Americans hold dear, along with a large part of a little thing called DUE PROCESS!
You see, I don't like the idea that my phone could be tapped for no reason. I don't like the fact that a police officer no longer needs probable cause to search my car, and I don't like the fact that if at some point I decided to read that the government may check on me based on my choices!
And I don't like the idea that if I'm law abiding that I should be ok with this. I am fairly law abiding, quite a bit more than most people my age, and I am still not ok with this! I am not ok with this because it takes America the dream and turns it into America, the bastardized hollow shell of what it once was, and I'm supposed to be ****ing OK with this? In your ****ing dreams!
Consider it your contribution to the war effort.JustineCredible said:Rock on!
I couldn't agree more. I too am fairly law abiding and truly hate the idea that medical records can be searched without notice to those being investigated! I don't like that public library records can be searched without notice to those being investigated.
These things bother me a on a grand scale. I'm an AMERICAN G*DDAM*IT! I served my country, pay my taxes and utilize MY right to PRIVACY!
What also bothers me is that the Patriot Act violates HIPAA, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. HIPAA
Medical Privacy - National Standards to Protect the Privacy of Personal Health Information.
It's not anyone's business to know when I last received a flu shot or what medications I've been prescribed.
The whole concept bothers me because I have a father who is NOT an American citizen. Granted, he's from Canada, but he's still recognized only as having a permanent visa and is not a citizen therefore cannot utilize many rights we all take for granted.
Fantasea said:First, let me say that I am, indeed, sorry about your speech impediment. Perhaps, if you seek help, you can have it corrected. It's really a distraction and greatly diminishes the merit of anything you say. A few well chosen verbs, adverbs, and adjectives in place of the juvenile invective would improve the readability of your posts and make them appear to be considerably more sensible as well as cordial.
Second, a country upon which war has been declared does not have the luxury of indulging all of the desires of all of its residents. Previous wars set the precedent for temporarily restricting freedoms for their duration. Complaints then, as now, fell on deaf ears.
Security in wartime is paramount. This has never been so true as it is now when the enemy who has declared war on the US is a faceless shadow able to inflict great damage at relatively little cost to himself. Past and present examples of their work are proof of that.
Whatever legal tools which can be made available to aid in the fight should and will be used. When the war is concluded, things will get back to normal, as they always have.
Until then, despite all the noise being made about all of the "what ifs", those who behave themselves will have no cause to fear anything from the government.
I understand the issue perfectly.alex said:You are not understanding the issue here. The Patriot Act should be used for war concerns. It should not be used to harrass the citizens that it is meant to protect. Kicking out a homeless person from the subway, or whatever it was, using the Patriot Act is wrong. That is abuse and it shoud not be tolerated.
Fantasea said:I understand the issue perfectly.
If some malcontent insists on making a nuisance out of himself, any available legal means should be applied to correct the situation.
This guy is homeless because that's what he wants to be. He chooses to ignore the alternatives. Why should others have to put up with his antics in a railroad station?
Laws do not abuse persons. They set out standards of unnaceptable conduct and enumerate penalties upon conviction. What do you think of the RICO laws, enacted to go after the Mafiosa now being used in cases of white collar crime?alex said:Quote:
That is a major misunderstanding of our law system. If any law can be used to abuse any person, we are in a lot of trouble. Every law has an intention. Going outside of that intention is corruption.Originally Posted by Fantasea
I understand the issue perfectly.
If some malcontent insists on making a nuisance out of himself, any available legal means should be applied to correct the situation.
This guy is homeless because that's what he wants to be. He chooses to ignore the alternatives. Why should others have to put up with his antics in a railroad station?
Personalities have no place in an objective discussion.Would you be so tolerant if the Patriot Act was used outside its intent against you?
I'm not a lawyer but I believe being a public nuisance is a misdemeanor.Being homeless is not a crime.
Fantasea said:Consider it your contribution to the war effort.
If your father wishes to avail himself of the full rights of US citizenship, there are steps he may take in that direction.
Fantasea said:I understand the issue perfectly.
If some malcontent insists on making a nuisance out of himself, any available legal means should be applied to correct the situation.
This guy is homeless because that's what he wants to be. He chooses to ignore the alternatives. Why should others have to put up with his antics in a railroad station?
Fantasea said:First, let me say that I am, indeed, sorry about your speech impediment. Perhaps, if you seek help, you can have it corrected. It's really a distraction and greatly diminishes the merit of anything you say. A few well chosen verbs, adverbs, and adjectives in place of the juvenile invective would improve the readability of your posts and make them appear to be considerably more sensible as well as cordial.
Fantasea said:This guy is homeless because that's what he wants to be. He chooses to ignore the alternatives. Why should others have to put up with his antics in a railroad station?
Naughty Nurse said:If we were talking about a truly civilised society that really cared for its vulnerable people youmight have a point. Again, Fantasea, try connecting with reality once in a while.
Oh, and BTW, if you are right and there really is a God, you might discover that he/she/it doesn't like you very much.
JustineCredible said:Now now, we have a basement for that...none of that this afternoon. (Well afternoon to you, that is....it's still fairly early in the AM here in the states)
Naughty Nurse said:Point taken, mother.
But I meant every word, and I won't say sorry. Anyway, he started it! :boohoo:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?