So basically no matter what anyone who differs on opinion says or proves, it only "sounds" fine and dandy? Here's a thought... What if it really is fine and dandy? Or is that simply not acceptable?
It might be which is why I did not discount it totally, however of course the people who want it put into place are going to list 'fact v myth' to why it's good even if what they state is false are they not? Doesn't the federal government also do it with many other things including the war on drugs? Anti abortion groups list their facts v myths in the extreme cases to prove a point of abortion should be banned, womans choice groups however list a fact v myth that states the exact opposite. Sorry I like to see something in the middle, not from the people who want the act nor the people who totally despice the act. In this case the Department of Justice versus the ACLU. Sorry I'd rather take a non partisan opinion on the subject matter of which is where I base my opinion on.
So even though "reality" is that our reading habits are of no interest to them, they have they right to get them anyway... hmm... makes sense? If reading a published book at a library is proof of anything, why is the book allowed to published and distributed in the first place? Reading a book is not proof of intent for anything.. thats insane.
Looks like we don't need opinions, parts of the patriot act have already been ruled unconstitutional by federal court Looks like Gtech has been support an act that is unconstitutional and a violation against our most cherished freedom, FREE SPEECH!
This is a quote from your link (government web site): ------------------------------------ Section 215. Access to business records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Summary: Allows the FISA court, in an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, to issue an ex parte order requiring the production of any tangible things. Myth: "Many [people] are unaware that their library habits could become the target of government surveillance. In a free society, such monitoring is odious and unnecessary. . . The secrecy that surrounds section 215 leads us to a society where the 'thought police' can target us for what we choose to read or what Websites we visit." [ACLU, July 22, 2003] Reality: The library habits of ordinary Americans are of no interest to those conducting terrorism investigations. However, historically terrorists and spies have used libraries to plan and carry out activities that threaten our national security. We should not allow libraries to become safe havens for terrorist or clandestine activities. ----------------------------------- What part of their logic says that it can not be used against ordinary people and what is the protection that they offer? Should people believe in this nonsense because they said so? Who is the ordinary American? Is Cindy Sheehan an ordinary American or extra ordinary American that can be spied on? Who decides on who is ordinary or not? The second part of this so called reality gets even funnier. "However, historically terrorists and spies have used libraries to plan and carry out activities that threaten our national security." I think it is even more historically correct that libraries are usually used by students and intellectuals that normally are more progressive than the rest of the society. If these students and intellectuals start to protest against the war as they did during the Vietnam war, do they become extra-ordinary Americans that are danger to national security? It is interesting that the whole page of nonsense that you used as link is trying to prove that patriot act has no effect and it is not doing anything that they were not doing before, I think any intelligent person then can ask the question: "If it is not doing anything and have no effect, then why is it necessary to have it?"
Who's support this patriot act again? People who want to burn the constitution and everything the country was built on?
The web site is a Department of Justice Website. .gov The only thing I need to take into consideration is when others make up their own version of the truth and are not questioned, and when others point it out and are. I tend to keep my eye on that. Know what I mean, Vern?
gworld, let's try again: First, explain where and how this CAN happen in the US. http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/add_myths.htm#s215 First, explain where and how this CAN happen in the US. http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/add_myths.htm#s213 First, explain where and how this CAN happen in the US. http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/add_myths.htm#s215 http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/add_myths.htm#s802 Enemy combatant is the difference. Detaining enemy combatants, those that are about or intend on doing harm to our country. In such case, Jose Padilla is the only one I'm aware of. Who else comes to mind? What do we know of Padilla? http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/h_patact.htm This is exactly what the patriot act was designed for and it is working. Keeping al qaida off our streets and behind bars. Are you suggesting you want him free? Read what it has to say about him. Then find someone who you think IS innocent that has been put in prison without trial or conviction. Someone other than an al qaida operative that is being detained. First, explain where and how this CAN happen in the US. http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/add_myths.htm#s802 This is an untrue scenario. You are not familiar with the patriot act and are making up false scenarios. Don't need to. You are making up scenarios that do not exist and are clearly defined in the patriot act.
As you can see, the patriot act is being used against all kinds of people that are not "terrorists" plotting to kill all americans. Just as i gave the theoritical example before, we know have a confirmed case of a man being arrested and his home being searched and who was wrongfully jailed for two weeks! We also have the patriot act being used to keep homeless people out of train stations... we all know how homeless people have direct ties to terrorists!! And it gets better, the PATRIOT Act being used to investigate alleged potential drug traffickers without probable cause. Just like I said befor, without any evidence they're using this thing to violate real americans rights.
Refer to 2 post above this one with quote from your web site and the explanation about how stupid the reasoning in that page is. In the mean time, I understand that you will blindly accept the word of government since for a fascist, the government is always right. MY previous post
It was the very first line, the one that said "alleged abuses" that convinced you? And you are saying that a mistake was made, and then it was corrected? Who would be disappointed in that?
Is unsourced material ok now? I mean, I can just copy/paste from wherever I like? Just want to make sure we're all on the same page here.
1. Sections you pointed out as "myths" have already been ruled unconstitional. 2. The patriot act was used to jail an innocent man for 2 weeks and do "secret" searches of his home. They invaded his right to privacy without cause. 3. They're using it to investigate and violate others peoples rights on nothing but "suspicion" and "without probable cause" What do you have to say about that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act#Challenges_to_limit_the_USA_PATRIOT_Act Sorry, I got ahead of myself
I did. I didn't ask for your reasoning, I asked you to show where and how it can happen. And you have not. Do you intend to?
More Goodies: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...ode=&contentId=A64173-2003Apr20¬Found=true http://slate.msn.com/id/2087984/
I say it makes my point even stronger! Every day, law enforcement makes arrests. Some are later proven innocent. Not unlike this supposed case, someone was innocent and was released. Whether using, or not using the patriot act, the system worked. The person was freed. I also pointed out earlier, if there are abuses (not allegations), those directly involved should be punished. That you have found one, supposedly, and not thousands (or hundreds of thousands, which might make up a percent of a percent) is truly amazing! I would have thought the potential for abuse would/could be much higher. And that they were released makes it even more applauding that while a mistake was made, it was corrected! Long live America!
Gtech let me ask you a hypothetical question w/o getting into the actual specifics of acts being ruled against by courts, opinions on both sides of the isle etc. If abuses of americans rights, actual US citizens with non terror connections start to be proven to be occuring would you be in support of not eliminating the act, but simply having it reworded to make certain it is only used against terrorists, non US citizens?
Isn't this should be the other way around? They have the right to control anybody reading habit anywhere, so in reality this can happen to anyone, anytime and any where. In the mean time they say that they are not interested but do not offer any proof that there is anything there to stop them and people should just trust their good intentions.