- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Messages
- 1,560
- Reaction score
- 523
- Location
- Gilbert, Az
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
How exactly has the Patriot Act had a real positive impact on the nation? I agree that it does contain useful laws that should be keep, but what exactly is so important about it that we should accept its suppression of civil rights? Being able to hold U.S. citizens without trial is far more dangerous than the minor benefits that the patriot act brings.
On a related note, when are the democrats going to repeal the patriot act? Something I would actually congratualte them for. I keep hearing "The republicans! The republicans! Bush and the republicans! Oh Christ! Bloody MURDUR!" Ok, I get it, like I haven't heard that for last 8 years :roll: . Are you dems going to quit your whining actually do something about the PA? OH yea, that's right, you guys don't dominate the House and the Senate and have the presidency. Oh, oops, yea you do. It's been 100 days, are you dems going to repeal it or no? And if so, when?
It would be idiotic to scrap the entire Patriot. Absolutely patently idiotic. The ONLY way I could even remotely agree with that was if:
There was a 95% likely chance that the 90%+ of it that is good, necessary, useful updates to the intelligence laws on the books would be voted back in immediately
OR
People pushing for it ALSO are pushing for the entire FISA legislation to be overturned and scrapped AND that TITLE III of the OMNIBUS Crime Control and Safe Streets Act is also over turned and scraped.
Its foolish and absolutely fool hearty to try and use FOURTY year old intelligence law to try to determine how law enforcement should go forward with such things in a world with technology that wasn't even DREAMED of by most people at that point in time. The amount of loop holes and grey areas in the law at that time that could be manipulated by BOTH sides was FAR to large.
This idiotic notion that we need to scrap a law because there's a potential for abuse with a portion of it is beyond me. Shall we get rid of the entire federal law enforcement completely? Because having it opens us up to abuse. Get rid of it. All of it. Right? I'm sure you're for that ikari? Actually, get rid of the military why we're at it. The military can be open to abuse by the government so we should get rid of it. If the FBI, without the Patriot, did this would you say "Scrap the FBI"? How do you pick and choose what emotional over reacting scape goat you want to choose Ikari?
This idiotic ignorant scare tacting on the part of most people, especially people who 9 out of 10 times do NOTHING but parrot talking points from whatever political websites and sources they choose that are directly in line with their thinking without EVER giving a legitimate attempt to view the information from the other side and get actual REALISTIC fact, is more offensive to me than the act itself by a large margin as its people acting purely and fully off faulty or extremely biased information and emotion and nothing more.
How things are working with the Patriot Act is the correct way it should be done, is the best way it should be done, and is how it should continue. The only change I would suggest would be to possibly push for it to go faster which would mean pressure for people on their members of Congress to push for them to pass laws editing the questionable portions. But what Ikari is suggesting is the political equivalent of removing an entire arm because there's a problem with the tip of the finger.
1 - I searched the CNN site for news or video of this and got nothing. You did not see it on CNN
2 - the story as reported by the local station contained almost no information. It was badly reported, badly written and badly sourced.
3 - If this was a real story, the mainstream media would be all over it, despite your conspiratorial belief that they would "hide" it.
4 - the Patriot Act was cooked up by Republicans, and I didn't hear the right whining about it when Bush was president
5 - When I am "trying to be witty" I will send you an PM to alert you.
Zyphilin, I have a question.
I have been informed that, under the Patriot Act:
1. The President or Atty Gen can, by signing the appropriate form, declare an individual to be an "enemy combatant". No evidence is required, just that signature on that form.
2. Having been so declared, the individual (even if a US citizen) may be taken into custody, held without charges, without a lawyer, without phone calls, etc indefinately.
Is this correct?
G.
YouTube - USA using Patriot Act against its own citizens
Youtube vid of a news report. It's kinda crazy, apparently nothing was found but the kid is still in jail. Actually, I was trying to find follow ups to see if anything else has come of this just yet or not. Regardless, the use of the PA against our citizens, it may not be "common place" as far as we know now, but it does seem the government will use it against us if it suits their cause. Scary stuff.
Hammond, IN—The United States Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana previously announced that a juvenile was arrested pursuant to a federal warrant. The arrest stems from a false bomb threat directed to Purdue University on February 15 and similar threats directed to other schools. The FBI, the Purdue University Police Department and the Tippecanoe County Prosecutor's Office, conducted an extensive investigation into this matter, resulting in that arrest.
Over recent days several media sources have reported information that is incorrect. Accordingly, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana wishes to further announce that a juvenile information has been filed and is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. That charge alleges a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 844(e), which prohibits sending false information about an attempt to kill, injure or intimidate any individual or to unlawfully to damage any building through an instrument of interstate commerce. This charge is unrelated to the Patriot Act.
The juvenile has appeared in court on three occasions, once in North Carolina for an initial hearing and a detention hearing, and twice in Indiana for a continued initial hearing and a status hearing. At each hearing, the juvenile was represented by counsel. The government has filed a motion with the Court seeking to transfer the juvenile to adult status for prosecution pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 5032; that motion is pending before the Court and is scheduled for a hearing during the month of May. The juvenile is presently housed in a juvenile facility in the Northern District of Indiana where he does not have contact with adult offenders. His mother has been apprised of each court appearance and has attended the hearing in North Carolina; she did not appear at either of the hearings in Indiana. The juvenile facility where he is housed permits family visits.
Because the statutes governing juvenile proceedings limit public disclosure of information related to a juvenile case, the United States Attorney declines any further comment.
The United States Attorney emphasizes that the filing of a complaint or juvenile information is merely a charge and that all persons are presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law.
It’s the false TV news report heard ’round the world. Raleigh, North Carolina’s WRAL-5 reported last week that a 16-year-old bomb hoax suspect was hauled out of his mother’s home by federal agents, and is now being held without any legal rights on the authority of the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act, which “supersedes the Constitution.”
[...]
The arrest of the teenager is real enough. FBI agents investigating a February 15 bomb hoax that evacuated the mechanical engineering building at Purdue University traced the phone call to the juvenile’s Oxford, North Carolina home, served his mother with a search warrant and arrested the teen. They issued a press release about it, omitting the suspect’s name. That was on March 5, and he’s been held without bail in Indiana ever since.
The claim that the boy is a victim of USA PATRIOT, though, appears to have been cut from whole cloth. While there’s plenty to criticize in that post-9/11 law, it doesn’t contain any provision that abrogates a defendant’s right to a trial. It’s also not responsible for making it illegal to phone in a bomb threat. That’s been a federal crime since 1939.
The boy’s mother, Annette Lundeby, has even acknowledged in interviews that her son has been formally charged, has a court-appointed attorney, and has already made appearances in front of a judge. No military tribunals here. On Alex Jones, Lundeby seemed to more-or-less admit that the USA PATRIOT connection was something she dreamed up on her own.
Jones: And they said they are charging him under the Patriot Act, so –
Lundeby: They’re not saying that, but that’s exactly what they’re doing.
Jones: Well, it’s in the newspaper.
Lundeby: All their actions point towards that. But they don’t deny it either.
I am always amused by the paranoia exhibited by people like Ikari over these perceived dangers; and yet, Ikari has a better chance getting the Ebola Virus than he does losing any of his Civil Rights.
How is this breaking news? Is YOUTUBE a valid news source; another epoch fail on your part. :roll:
Yet this very thread has a news report of an American Citizen being stripped of their rights and being held under the PA. So obviously through measured fact, everything you just said was bull****.
What profound irony based on what I and Kernel posted, the only one spewing paranoid BS on the forum is.......tada; YOU. :2wave:
This kid was NOT charged under the Patriot Act. Most of the popular perception of this case is entirely wrong
Source [US Department of Justice | JUVENILE INFORMATION FILED] (Press Release)
The mother basically made the whole Patriot Act thing up - the media still takes some of the blame for inflating the claims as much as they did
Source [Wired Threat Level | Bloggers, TV, Go Nuts Over Misleading ‘Patriot Act’ Arrest Claim]
I get it, I'm an idiot.
Thanks for that great, insightful, and insult laden post. It did a lot to further the debate. Maybe I should retort with nothing but personal insults as well.
Here's the thing. The PA needs to be scrapped in total. If you think there are good parts that need to be established, make a new damned bill.
But the PA in its form is not good, it's too open, and apparently can and will be abused. Abused legislation must be taken away from the government
The government isn't this benevolent institution out there looking to bring us smiles and rainbows. It's a bureaucracy full of people who want to further their own power and because it wields the power and soveriegnty of the People, it must necessarily be constrained, restricted, and subject to multiple review. I'm not saying get rid of the arm because of the "tip of the finger" crap. I'm saying once government gets power it will abuse that power.
If we excuse the abuse because "most of the bill is good" blah blah blah then we do nothing more than encourage that abuse.The PA is NOT a good bill OBVIOUSLY because it can and has been abused. That makes it not a good bill on the whole. Once it is abused, it must be taken away. Anything which must be given to the government can be given to it with severe restrictions and warnings attached.
Furthermore, the majority of the proper functionality which came from the PA could be accomplished without the PA.
There are many things which could be done. I'm not saying we do nothing, no matter what you'd like to distort my argument into to make yours easier.
I'm saying we can only take proper action, however. And that we must be CAREFUL in what we allow the government to do and with the degrees of freedom we allow it to do it with. But that's idiotic, huh? Stupid according to you.
What needed to be done could have easily been done without the PA. All the PA did was to authorize government with power it wasn't supposed to have; and that's far more dangerous than any terrorist could ever be.
You want to know the idiotic ignorant scare tacting on the part of most people, especially people who 9 out of 10 times do NOTHING but parrot talking points from whatever political websites and sources they choose that are directly in line with their thinking without EVER giving a legitimate attempt to view the information from the other side and get actual REALISTIC fact is? It's this "terrorists are going to get us" line. It's "accept the expansion of government and the usurpation of your power as sovereigns because the terrorists are coming". That's the real source of ignorance in this Republic. People who think we have so much to fear from terrorists that we have to let government expand and take more and more power, excusing the abuses the entire way because "part of it is good". That's true ignorance right there.
We had wiretaps which were abused by the FBI, that's measured.
The audit showed in both pure number and percentage the sample having well too much abuse.
The PA has been used at least once against its own citizen and that's too much.
But it's stupid to watch out for that, huh? Idiotic and ignorant to lay blame towards the government when it abuses power...right? Don't question the government, it's here for us; Zyphlin would disagree with that.
They'll protect us, and their usurpation of power shouldn't bother us. Move along, nothing to see here. What's idiotic is ignoring the warnings of the founders.
What's stupid is absolute trust in the government. What's ignorant is the abdication of the duties and responsibilities of freemen, the abandonment of the never ending battle of freedom, and tuning one's back to the Republic in favor of oligopoly. Weak individuals who can't accept the responsibilities and consequences of freedom and liberty. Pathetic.
How is this breaking news? Is YOUTUBE a valid news source; another epoch fail on your part. :roll:
This kid was NOT charged under the Patriot Act. Most of the popular perception of this case is entirely wrong
Source [US Department of Justice | JUVENILE INFORMATION FILED] (Press Release)
The mother basically made the whole Patriot Act thing up - the media still takes some of the blame for inflating the claims as much as they did
Source [Wired Threat Level | Bloggers, TV, Go Nuts Over Misleading ‘Patriot Act’ Arrest Claim]
You post BS, Kernel posted something valid.
Wonderful little rant there. Alex Jones would be proud. However, gotta ask.
What the **** does that have to do with anything I said?
Please, again, point me to where I said the Patriot Act needs to stay in place "because terrorists are coming" or because "the terrorists are going to get me". I know I'm not one of those in the 9 out of 10 range unless the ACLU and EPIC are somehow pro-patriot Act and I just missed it.
Yes, there ARE ignorant people on BOTH sides of the Patriot Act spectrum. Those that try to say the act is 100% lock tite, everything is great about it, and nothing needs to be removed are JUST as wrong and I'll argue against them JUST as much when they come out and say it. I'm not sure why you're ranting about it in this response because I don't disagree with you.
Yep, that's the government abusing something. We need to get rid of the FDA cause naturally since they're government they will also abuse, chop it all off.
And, are you telling me Ikari that we never had any wiretap abuses prior to the Patriot Act? And, if we did, how exactly is it the ENTIRE Patriot Acts fault because the government did the same thing it did previous to it, abused power at times.
Indeed, and I'm likely all in favor of restricting back that power.
By the way, which power is it exactly? Could you provide me a reference point in the Act to which power specifically you have issue with or is this just some nebulus "issue"? Perhaps that's why you hate the entire act, because everything you read just frames it...much like this news story you posted...as "The Patriot Act" because god forbid someone actually do some research to find out specifics.
Yep, so has the FBI. Remove it. CIA. Remove it. They turned the Military against private citizens once. Remove it. Wait, the President of the United States of America perpetrated abuse against its own citizens once under Nixon....we need to remove the position of President of the United States of America.
Actually, I wouldn't. Actually, in my posts IN THIS VERY THREAD I even stated there were abuses and they needed to be changed. But go ahead, continue to just blatantly misrepresent me, its kind of funny.
Ahh, here comes the libertarian version of Godwin's law. Yes Ikari, yes, channel the founders. Let them flow through you. I'm sure you're got the spirit of jefferson and washington speaking right in your ears, let it out.
Well, glad I don't have absolute trust in the government. Wow glad I'm not abdicating duties and responsabilities or abandoning the battle for freedom. Glad I've not turned my back on things. Glad I'm not just being a hyperly paranoid person parroting the standard hyper libertarian talking points while giving out no specifics and acting hysterical about the big bad government while at the same time being absolutely inconsistant as I MASSIVELY misrepresent the viewpoint of the person disagreeing with me.
Phew, for a moment there I thought your little rant was actually going to apply to me.
You were calling me stupid for my belief in government restriction. I don't think believing the government should be restricted and watched is being stupid, nor demanding that improper legislation be removed as an act of ignorance as you wanted to claim. Just giving back a little of what you were dishing out.
It's one of the most widely used excuses for the PA.
Yet you do disagree with me. The PA has parts which are bad, they aren't restricted enough and allow too much leeway. Considering what it is that the PA concerns itself with, particularly when it comes to defense against charges laid by the government; something that could prove so catastrophically dangerous should be done away with. The vast majority of the proper functionality of the PA could be handled through different means. The overall existence of the PA is a danger, and thus must be done away with. Further laws need to note this and if we are going to grant additional power to the federal government, it must be severely and clearly restricted.
Didn't you bitch in this very post about me misrepresenting you? And then you do it to me again? Interesting.
There is legitimate reason for the FDA to exist, and properly restricted it can benefit many. I see it as too floppy right now and needs better regulation and control. But it's also not going to take away habeas corpus from you either; the threat levels of the government institutions and benefit derived from it are different.
The government has abused much before the PA. I just don't think we should be making it easier for them.
I don't like their classification of terrorist being mostly up to them and the repercussions of government labeling one as terrorist with no ability to fight or defend yourself against the claim. The PA is in general too vague and overall unnecessary.
I certainly hope you're not such a blatant hypocrite that you would then later in this post bitch about me misrepresenting you. Especially if you claim I'm MASSIVELY misrepresenting you. Cause hell, that's all this is. And you were doing it earlier too. But you're not that blatant a hypocrite, right?
That last part is a lie. You've done nothing but misrepresent me, from the moment you insulted me. I just fed back some of what you had dished out. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Mmmm, condescension. I like how you expect to be treated fairly and with respect, but don't give it out to others.
Yeah, posting a link to the actual ACT and definition of what it entails is BS.
Let me summarize this for you:
You post a BS YouTube video as "breaking news", make uninformed paranoid statements about an act you OBVIOUSLY haven’t bothered to read and know little to nothing about, then claim OTHERS are full of BS when they post a link to the actual act?
I can’t find a better definition for closed minded petty arrogance combined with a lot of denial and paranoia.
Moderator's Warning: |
No, I was not calling you stupid. You really need to get it through your head that one can believe that ones OPINION is stupid without believing the PERSON is stupid. I think your OPINION that the ENTIRE Patriot Act needs to be removed is stupid and based on either your ignorance of the true facts about it or based on an inconsistant view on how the government should function.
Well and good. Show me where I used it.
Yes, I do disagree with you. I disagree with you that the ENTIRE ACT needs to be stripped. What I don't disagree with you about is that there are PORTIONS that are bad.
No, the "vast majority" of what the Patriot Act does can not be done effectively and without massive loopholes and nebulus places for abuse, that unlike the Patriot Act ones wouldn't be so cut and dry, without it.
The overall existance of the PA is in no way, shape, or form a "danger".
I bitched that you completely and utterly misrepresented me.
"But it's stupid to watch out for that, huh? Idiotic and ignorant to lay blame towards the government when it abuses power...right? Don't question the government, it's here for us; Zyphlin would disagree with that. "
No, Zyphlin would not disagree with that and nothing Zyphlin typed in this thread stated a disagreement with that, indeed thigns Zyphlin stated in this thread actually agreed with it.
You specifically and blatantly lied about what my stance was.
What I did was illustrate the absurditity of your argument by providing an analogy that, for you to be consistant, would need to be true. In no way shape or form did I believe or imply it was what you actually do think about the FDA.
There are legitimate reasons for the Patriot Act to exist, and properly restircted it can benefit many. It has issues right now that are potentially damaging and needs further refining and oversight. However, abuses were present in the intelligence and law enforcement fields prior to it coming into being and much like a gun doesn't kill people, repealing the entire Patriot Act isn't going to magically make people not abuse things.
Yes. The government has abused NUMEROUS laws before, but I don't see you screaming for them being repealed.
Again, I urge you, justify how you next to never ever touch FISA or TITLE III which also deal with giving the government the ability to use survelliance on people and has been abused before yet are routinely going after the Patriot Act?
I agree, we shouldn't make it easier for the government to abuse the Patriot Act. We should continue putting in safe guards, editing out dangerous portions of it, having further oversight, and having it challlenged in court. ABSOLUTELY.
We just shouldn't scrap the entire thing.
I agree COMPLETELy about your view on the classification of terrorist. Hell, I said pretty much EXACTLY THAT in this thread. However, that is one portion of a large bill that would be more logical and efficient to edit out with one small new law rather than scrap the entire thing and try to create numerous large new laws to replace the good that was just destroyed.
Its funny you keep talking about the "vagueness" of the Patriot Act becuase you've still yet to produce even a single specific section you have an issue with.
As already explained, there is a difference with flat out stating what I "disagree with" something and me stating that if you are making an argument that if X happens than Y must happen then you need to be consistant and apply that all across the board.
I've not insulted you, I've insulted your position.
And I've not misrepresented you at all. You've stated that if the government is abusing a piece of legislation than that is reason to remove the entire legislation? Is that not what you said? Your own words:
"The PA is NOT a good bill OBVIOUSLY because it can and has been abused."
Is that not saying that because it was abused the whole thing must go and is bad?
"That makes it not a good bill on the whole. Once it is abused, it must be taken away."
is that not saying that because it was abused than the whole thing is bad?
Is that NOT what you said.
See, that's your issue. You flat out said that, so I used hyperbole to say that if you agree with that how can you not apply it to the rest of the government.
You however have to completely and utterly ignore entire segments of my posts to come up with your comments. I actually said earlier in this thread:
"And, as I already acknowledged in my initial point, there likely IS an issue with the Patriot Act here and if it ends up being the case I hope these guys win and I hope that section of it is stricken down, as it should be."
Now see, no matter what hyperbolic length you take that to it is in no way able to made out to be anywhere near this:
"Don't question the government, it's here for us; Zyphlin would disagree with that. "
Because thats pretty clearly me stating that they NEED to question the government and that I hoped they WIN in doing so if he was wronged and things would change.
You can keep trying to play it off like what I'm doing with your statements and what you did with my stances is the same, but they're simply not. You're completely ignoring things I stated and making up my position from square one. I've taken things you've said and putting forth analogy's to show how inconsistant that view is.
Sarcasm actually. Yes, long winded rants that generally don't apply to me can tickle my sarcastic bone rather well.
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?