No the system didn't work. A man's constitutional rights were violated. You can't just say "oops, messup, ok it's all fixed". Once you've broken the constitution you've broken the very foundation our country was created on. There's no excusing it, wether it's a single case or 1,000.
hrbl, yo-yo You are wasting your time since both of you still assuming that Gtech believes in Constitution. I have a news for you, he doesn't. Look at all his previous postings, Government is always right and individual have no rights in his ideal society.
How are we supposed to find out about abuses if they are all classified? Source: http://slate.msn.com/id/2087984/
Yes, absolutely. And I'm not opposed to that now. I'm not interested in this act working AGAINST Americans rights. However, there is a fine line for me on this. I am personally not interested in the rights of terrorists. Including someone who happens to be a citizen or have a US passport, but is a member of a terrorist group. I think that's where I differ from gworld. If during an investigation, LEA happens on to another suspect who is planning a murder spree, but is not part of a current terror investigation, I expect they would take some sort of action to prevent people from being killed, as opposed to say "well, we can't really do anything here." Does a killer's rights trump the rights of innocent people? To the point where it has been very effective in going after terrorist cells, cutting their finances, etc., I'm very happy with it. However, I'm concerned it *could* be abused. Clearly there have been a few scenarios where it was either abused, or mistakes were made. Those mistakes should be corrected. However, a few mistakes should not take away something so effective in fighting terrorism. The same could be said that police beat Rodney King and therefore we should no longer have police. Mistakes happen in life, and in the government. If one is made and it is corrected, then for me, the system works. To take inaction as the best course of action because there is a potential to make a mistake is not a solution. I don't imply you even suggest that, just giving an overall opinion on it. Right now, the best anyone seems to be able to produce are a few isolated scenarios that have corrected themselves. Sort of disappointed really, I figured for as much hype over it, they would have some smoking guns or something.
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.
EXCELLENT responce, you may not believe it but much of what I believe is what you just stated. However it appears you're a bit more willing to give trust to the government not to abuse the act, and or citizens of the US. As far as current abuses though much of the patriot act and what is happening even by accounts of Ashcroft himself 'are secret' so we honestly do not know how much the abuses may be occurring which realy bugs the piss out of me and leads me to believe it's much more than we currently do know. Many republicans in the house and senate have also tried and I believe in at least one or 2 instances reformed some of the law and or defunded it to an extent because of this same feeling. __________________
Since you could not see it before: 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?"
Once again, the questions remain gworld. You claim those things exist, but try to turn and twist when asked to show they do. Answer the questions, or are you admitting you cannot? Don't answer with questions, just answer THE questions. Actually, you cannot. I knew you couldn't and that actually proved my point.
What a bunch of BS? When in history of criminal justice in USA, police could not arrest someone who was planning a terrorist attack or even robbing a bank? There was always laws against doing criminal acts. How is spying on reading habits of people related to killing people? Should we spy on everyone and hope that one of them is terrorist, so we will be justified in taking away people freedom and liberty? You say that you are not interested in rights of terrorists but who decides that someone is a terrorist or criminal without the court and conviction? What you are really saying that you are not interested in rights of anyone (including Americans) that government calls terrorist, isn't that right? Government knows best, government is right, individual have no rights, isn't this what you support?
So you admit the claims you made, that I answered and corrected for you, are not true and you cannot show they are? That's what I thought you were trying to say
Are you trying to prove you are also a moron and not only a fascist. I answered your post on theoretical level and yo-yo supplied you with factual examples but you still refuse to see it and keep repeating yourself. It is too bad, your groupie Zman is not here, otherwise he could have been impressed by stupidity of your postings.
I don't mind the name calling gworld. That you can't answer the questions proves my point. Should you decide to back up what you originally asserted, and that I corrected, the link is in my sig
While what Gworld did point out 'of which I actually called him on one' I do not believe is happening as of yet, I do still feel and hope others on here do see how to much power against US citizens not only goes against the constitution but 'could' become a situation such as Gworld did lay out. Again look at gun laws, how one set of laws continued to spiral into a continual erosion of the fundamental right to bear arms. Even if wide spread abuses are going on, of which we would realy only know about them 'if' people are arrested and then proven to be an abuse, it's very easy to see how other erosions of constitutional rights could be going on w/o any real proof or knowledge for years to come. At least in my opinion, the government has been guilty of such in the past and in most cases it took years after the acts to find out the full scope of what was going on.
Nope not fully at least, however for any power given to the government I would think it wise to speculate on how the government could use those powers against it's population would you not? -edit well going to have a few more beers, play a game and might be back on later. I do plan on however trying to find some of the legal write ups I have read in the past on the subject, I have tried to a degree and thus far have not found many of them I wish every article I've ever read in a news paper was automatically posted to my puter, would make things much easier.
I would think speculation verses unfounded accusations and even going so far as to deliberately make up things that are not true, are different scenarios. The same could be used to speculate gun owners. Bob bought a gun today. He might use it to murder someone in the future. Do we use that to point fingers at Bob? The police arrested a suspected bank robber yesterday. They said he matched a description given by the teller. After further questioning at the police station, the subject was released. Should I be opposed to a gun owner because they "could" use it to murder someone? Should I be opposed to the police because they arrested the wrong person?