You are turning into one of those conspiracy Kooks, yoyo...everything is done by the government to try to get you. here is my advice: turn off your lights, turn off your pc, move out to the country where no one can find you. Do you seriously think that we will stand a chance against terror without the new laws? Who is going to protect me and my family ... YOU? Get real, dude. it's good to question your government and yes some laws leave room for abuse, but that is why I love living in a democracy: when someone abuses the laws, others can hold them accountable.
Would terrorists prefer the patriot act? It's been quite successful in stopping their activities around the world. No wonder you are so upset. What's shredded? Your right to take on the same position as terrorists? Your right to voice your support for the same things terrorists want? Your right to whine and moan and blame America first? Jimmy Massey would be proud of you. Oh wait, he doesn't exist! Boo hoo, oh whoa is me. Doom, despair and agony on me. Whose sitting around crying? We need a crybaby smiley
Why not ask this terrorist supporter if the patriot act is exactly what he wanted: http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/19/attacks.professor.ap/
Who cares what a terrorist supporter says? On one hand people state 'they hate us for our freedom' of which is coming from our government as well including GWB and on the other hand others have no problem in the possibility of giving up or eroding rights in the name of terrorism. It's simple you state A is what they want, yet you do A in even a small form, yep makes it real logical to me and real easy to defend. sarcasm of course Have I said I'm against the patriot act for 'terrorists?' no I have not.
Apparently you didn't read it. The patriot act opened the doors for agencies to cooperate and apprehend him. I see what you argue and what you don't. No need to clarify your position.
Why would I need to read it, of which yes I did. Have I once stated I am against the full patriot act? Yeah ok you think that, I get a chuckle out of that every time you 'think' that.
I argue to give the government more power against 'terrorists' while striking any mention of using any act within the patriot act that even smells of infringing on US citizens rights from the record unless it specifically states terrorists. And as far as the 'what you argue and what you don't' I see it as your 'terrorist supporter' for all others, just your cute little nickname for me
Federal torture of prisoners Until recently, the last clause of the Eighth Amendment — the part that prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments†— was rather noncontroversial except with respect to the imposition of the death penalty. For all practical purposes, the clause had become as irrelevant as the Third Amendment’s prohibition against the quartering of troops in people’s homes. Not anymore. In fact, ever since 9/11 the right to bail and the “cruel and unusual†clause of the Eighth Amendment have become vitally important, given the federal government’s policies regarding indefinite detention and torture. In an early case addressing this clause, Wilkerson v. Utah (1878), the Supreme Court stated, Difficulty would attend the effort to define with exactness the extent of the constitutional provision which provides that cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted; but it is safe to affirm that punishments of torture [such as drawing and quartering, embowelling alive, beheading, public dissecting, and burning alive] and all others in the same line of unnecessary cruelty, are forbidden by that amendment to the Constitution. The reason that the Court referred to those particular acts of torture was that the English government had employed them against its own people. The “war on terrorism†In a genuine war, prisoners of war are required to be treated according to the principles of the Geneva Convention, which prohibits such things as rape, pillage, and torture of prisoners. Even in the absence of a Geneva Convention, however, many people would argue that a civilized country should prohibit such misconduct on the part of its military forces, even when fighting a barbarian who is engaging in such misconduct. The Eighth Amendment addresses situations where the federal government is accusing a person of committing a crime, not committing an act of war. While acknowledging that terrorism is a federal crime, the federal government has nonetheless assumed the power to detain and punish accused terrorists outside the normal judicial process. U.S. officials justify this position by saying that their “war on terrorism†is akin to a real war, such as World War II or the Vietnam War. Therefore, the argument goes, the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to people suspected of violating federal criminal laws against terrorism. Since the enemy in the “war on terrorism†is an illegal combatant (i.e., he doesn’t wear a military uniform), they claim, he is not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention. Therefore, they say, the government can do whatever it wants to these prisoners, including detaining them indefinitely (or until the war on terrorism is finally “wonâ€) and denying them bail, counsel, habeas corpus, trial by jury, and a speedy trial. One major problem with the government’s position, of course, is that terrorism is, in fact, a criminal offense, not an act of war, which is confirmed by the federal government’s own criminal indictments of Zacarias Moussaoui (the so-called 20th hijacker on 9/11) and other accused terrorists whose cases are being tried in federal courts across the land, and correctly so. Those defendants are, of course, entitled to all the protections of the Bill of Rights. Yet, operating solely on an ad hoc, discretionary basis, the federal government is treating other suspected terrorists as “enemy combatants†in the “war on terrorism†and denying them the protections of the Bill of Rights. Consider an analogy involving the federal government’s 30-year metaphorical “war on drugs.†Suppose DEA agents began dividing drug suspects into two categories — those charged in federal court with violating drug laws and others treated as “enemy combatants†in the “war on drugs†whom they begin transporting to the Pentagon’s base at Guantanamo Bay for punishment. Applying the government’s reasoning in the “war on terrorism†to its “war on drugs,†the suspected drug-law violators in the first group would be entitled to the protections of the Bill of Rights, while those in the second group would be entitled neither to the protections of the Bill of Rights nor to those of the Geneva Convention (they don’t wear uniforms). Those in the second group could be detained until the “war on drugs†was finally won (i.e., never). But aren’t the feds doing all this only to foreigners? Why should this concern Americans? Well, carefully read the Eighth Amendment and, for that matter, the Sixth Amendment. You’ll notice something important — these procedural guarantees apply not just to U.S. citizens accused of a federal crime but rather to all people, citizens and foreigners alike, who are accused of a federal crime. It is this universal applicability of criminal-justice rights that has always distinguished the American system of criminal justice from most others around the world. The Padilla doctrine Moreover, those who are tempted to think, “Oh, well, it’s only happening to foreigners,†should think again, because it’s also happening to Americans. For almost three years, the Pentagon has held an American, Jose Padilla, in a military brig in South Carolina. They’re accusing Padilla of conspiracy to commit terrorism but they have never formally charged him with a crime. They arrested him in Chicago but there has never been a grand jury indictment. During most of the time that Padilla has been held in military custody, he has been denied the right to speak with his family or with an attorney. Now you might be tempted to think, “Hey, Padilla is just some poor Hispanic guy who got himself into trouble. So what? Why should I care?†You should care because the Padilla doctrine constitutes a watershed event in American constitutional history and arguably the gravest threat to our way of life in the history of our nation. It effectively washes away centuries of constitutional protections with respect to the administration of criminal justice, including the presumption of innocence, habeas corpus, right to bail, right to counsel, and right to trial by jury. What everyone also needs to recognize is that the Pentagon’s position is that it has the legitimate power to do this not only to Jose Padilla but also to every single American. If the Padilla doctrine is upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, military officials will then possess the power to arrest any American, including newspaper editors, dissidents, and any critics of the government, and jail them indefinitely or, even worse, transport them to Cuba or elsewhere for torture or killing. Equally important, no one should operate under the misconception that the torture, sex abuse, rape, and murder of prisoners which have been committed by both the military and the CIA, have been committed by a few “bad apples.†As the evidence has surfaced, the “environment†and “culture†permitting and encouraging torture and sex abuse stretch all the way up to the highest reaches of executive power. Moreover, no one should forget that the infamous School of the Americas, which has been run by the Pentagon for decades, was teaching torture and assassination techniques for years to Latin American military regimes, which then employed them against their own people. Equally important to keep in mind is the CIA’s policy of “rendition,†by which CIA officials send terrorism suspects to brutal authoritarian regimes that are friendly to the U.S. government for the express purpose of the suspects’ being tortured. By jailing Padilla, an American citizen, Pentagon officials crossed the Rubicon. Yes, he’s only one person but make no mistake about it: he is simply the test case. If the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately upholds this assumption of military power on the part of the Pentagon, the number of American detainees, the number of Americans tortured, and the number of Americans “rendered†to foreign countries for the purpose of being tortured will quickly escalate, just as the numbers escalated in Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Bolivia during their infamous “wars on terrorism.†You can look at the whole text here: The Bill of Rights: Bail, Fines, and Cruel and Unusual Punishments
From my point of view, your argument line had nothing wrong. but to cure a bigger disease, you have to compromise on few fronts. its just not about your freedom. And Gtech Wasnt calling you "Terrorist suppoter". it was for YY.
A valuable contribution to the understanding of torture systems is a book entitled The Politics of Pain: Torturers and their Masters, edited by Ronald D. Crelinsten and Alex P. Schmid (Leiden: Center for the Study of Social Conflicts, 1993). It is the product of work done at the PIOOM Foundation at Leiden University, which carries out research on the causes of gross human rights violations. It is one of the few academic initiatives tackling this crucially important topic. To understand torture systems, it is necessary to know how people can torture someone else. The key is obedience to authority. As political psychologist Herbert Kelman puts it, torture is "a crime of obedience, carried out within a hierarchical authority structure, and serving the purposes of public policy." The authorities directing the torture system are guilty of crimes of authority. The central rationale for torture is a perceived or actual threat of violence against the state. Torture and state power and closely linked. The torturer is carrying out a job. There are clear expectations about what it takes to to the job well. The aim is to obtain results, either confessions or breaking the will of the victim. The method used is pain. Torture is carried out against those who are considered enemies. The life of the torturer is embedded in a wider institutional complex. There are superiors to control the process; there are doctors and psychologists to provide guidance about keeping the victim alive (killing the victim is a sign of professional failure); there are planners and builders to construct the torture chambers; and there are arrest squads to bring in the "subjects." No one is born a torturer. Those who become torturers are carefully selected from many potential recruits, and then there is an arduous training process, which may involve torture of the recruits. The training breaks down previous identities and builds up a new worldview in which those to be tortured are not seen as human. Yet there are some everyday reasons for becoming a torturer. For example, a soldier may want to live closer to home and join a torture group in order to do so. Torture thrives in situations where there is large-scale violence, such as war and genocide. An armed opposition movement, as in the case of guerrilla struggles in Latin America, makes torture by the army more likely. Military authorities from countries with torture systems repeatedly refer to the communist threat, to their lack of preparation to deal with guerrillas, and to the need to extract information concerning guerrillas. One factor not mentioned in this book is gender. Almost without exception, torturers are men, usually quite young. Masculinity, violence and obedience are closely linked together in torture systems. Much more research is needed on this link. Only one of the nine contributors to this volume is a woman. Understanding torture systems
I know gtech wasn't calling me a 'terrorist supporter' his pet name for me is 'he sees where I argue and where I do not' A compromise on the constitution is one thing I will not do. Bring it up for an amendment and then we'll see where that goes, but sorry no matter the danger I do not buy any compromise when it comes to the constitution otherwise what the hell are we fighting for? We are not protecting what this land was founded on or the basic rights off it afforded int he constitution. Those who have no problem compromising I see as 'false patriots' IMO. I also don't think you're getting the true grasp of what I'm saying, there are provisions within the Patriot Act that have NOTHING to do with terrorism of which is where my problem is.
Right, it sounds like both sides. For example, Jose Padilla (gworld's hero) is a US Citizen, but was also a member of al qaida that was training and seeking to do harm to our country. Though it is rare, it is not unheard of that a US citizen is also a member of, or supports, a terrorist group. Without the patriot act, it would be much more difficult to pursue trash like this. Which is what some want, even if it is inadvertantly. Then you completely misunderstand that reference all together, as I do not intend it that way, nor do I think such. There are others here, yes, but not you. What I see, is what I pointed out before. That you will say you are FOR something, almost as if to satisfy one side, but pick out some minute detail to be against it. The minute detail becomes the mass sum of the whole argument, leaving you in a constant position of having to reclarify what you stand for. It's a very recognizable pattern. You argue, almost exclusively, one side, but often reclarify your position on the other side. Perhaps I'm just not used to the nuance. Yes, I've heard the "think for myself" gig a number of times.
I think he's looking for some copy/paste material to blame America first with. I know he's not following what's going on in Paris, that's for sure
From my previous post: Now you might be tempted to think, “Hey, Padilla is just some poor Hispanic guy who got himself into trouble. So what? Why should I care?†You should care because the Padilla doctrine constitutes a watershed event in American constitutional history and arguably the gravest threat to our way of life in the history of our nation. It effectively washes away centuries of constitutional protections with respect to the administration of criminal justice, including the presumption of innocence, habeas corpus, right to bail, right to counsel, and right to trial by jury. What everyone also needs to recognize is that the Pentagon’s position is that it has the legitimate power to do this not only to Jose Padilla but also to every single American. If the Padilla doctrine is upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, military officials will then possess the power to arrest any American, including newspaper editors, dissidents, and any critics of the government, and jail them indefinitely or, even worse, transport them to Cuba or elsewhere for torture or killing.
Yes of which it could be treason could it not? There are more parts within the patriot act that can or already used that does not include terrorism. You appear to be backing something up simply because it appears to be working in your opinion it's totally fine. I am simply arguing for a make over, or fine tuning of it. Look at it this way, even if you feel the patriot act does not infringe on any right of US citizens there are many who feel the exact opposite of which will oppose the entire bill.. Now take out those parts not to do with terrorism and or that could be viewed as degrading the constitution and you may well find more would support legislation with even a stronger bite against terrorists. No actually I do understand it, I still take it as my pet name from you. As your reasoning is it's the hardline stance or no line stance which I find I'm sorry to say pathetic. If you can't even try to dispute someone who is on your side when you don't agree with them I find that extremely weak and childish. I'm not trying to win a school debate here, if I was maybe I would agree on one side no matter what.
I'm not interested in your "be kind to a terrorist" mantra. Pretend Jose was a Christian instead of part of al qaida. Then you'd have no problem bashing him. See my previous post about other illegal abductions that will surely be of interest to you.
Doesn't matter to me what others think. The patriot act is working quite well at doing what it's supposed to do. I'm not disappointed in what it's accomplished. I'm sure there are some who are disappointed in it's accomplishments. How many terrorist attacks went unchecked during the 90s against our interests? How many since 9/11? Without disappointment, there cannot be victory. If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. I don't find myself in the unque position of constantly having to reclarify what I stand for, because I'm arguing against it. Maybe that works well for you.