We have very little time left as a democracy- the Patriot Act, open-ended weapon against democracy
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Thursday, October 16, 2025 15:16
VIEWED: 18510
PAGE 3 of 21
Finn, after reading this whole thread so far I must say that I find you to be intellegent, knowledgeable, mostly tolerant of opposing views, and you seem to have a good heart.
The only thing you are lacking is the ability to understand broad based, subtle(and not-so subtle), long term, corporate backed and very devious conspiracy.
Other than that, you're fine.
Registered Conspiracy Theorist Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
and you’re a conspiracy nut.
BTW, a 'conspiracy nut' is a nut only until 'papers' surface, or until someone retires and writes a book.
Conspiracies surround us, big and small. Part of human existence, always has been, always will be.
Please get over it.
Obvious doesn't always mean easy to accept Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You get all that from this thread? That’s perceptive. And thanks. 
I’m not generally open to conspiracy theories; that’s true. You’re not the first person to have noticed my disdain for them either. 
I’m not against people who believe in conspiracy theories. Just be honest with me, if it’s speculation, tell me that. I’ll respect that. Speculation is healthy. But when you start trying to defend something that is purely speculative, you might paint yourself into a corner, if you’re not careful. It's kind of like someone arguing that god exists. I'm a religious guy. I believe in god, but I'm not going to try to argue that he exists, because the truth is that it is largely speculative.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
one of which means or implies that the information was suppressed by the government, and you’re a conspiracy nut
Hmm. You said it didn't exist. You said you didn't post it. You said it wasn't withdrawn. You said it might have been withdrawn because of accuracy concerns. Now you're saying it wasn't w/drawn by the government. Finn- did I EVER say it was w/drawn "by the government". Which position are you taking? Pick one. Any one. And stop contradicting yourself.
Quote:
It’s not a source that supports your argument
How does it not? The head of FBI counterterrorism testifies that eco-terrorism is one of the top priorities of the FBI.
Quote:
According to you, the conspiracy nut. Show me a source. One that actually exists
Is the London Times good enough for you? www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
Oh, I know- the London Times is published by conspiracy nuts, kind of like the BBC.
Quote:
I’ve decided your arguments are suspect, and based on their entire lack of support
except for the BBC and Hero's posts
Quote:
that would seem to be the case. Instead of recognizing the deficiency in your own arguments you instead make up some wholly paranoid story about intimidation.
When you baselessly accuse people of supporing terrorism, then it is intimidation
Quote:
For instance, your insistence that the government is suppressing CNN articles...
That's is not what I said. But feel free to make up any old argument, you do anyway!
Quote:Not really. I have another reliable source
...because they are crucial to your online debate
The testimony was real. The articles were real. The w/drawal was real. Now, here is the speculation.
Why is the FBI focusing on eco-terrorism? It's small potatoes in terms of risk and damage, especially compared to problems like illegal aliens and the risk of foreign terrorists on US soil. According to Hero's definition of "terrorism", it doesn't even meet the last criteria, since no lives have been lost or people injured. I suppose you can speculate that someone MIGHT get injured some day, but that really is entirely speculation. (Thank you, Hero, for that info.)
So, again: why eco-terrorism since it apparently doesn't even meet the definition of terrorism and seems to have very little impact in terms of risk? I mean, if you're focusing resources on eco-terrorism, what else might you be missing?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Terrorism is a real phenomenon. You can dismiss it as a harmless caveat to existing crimes that is being abused by the current administration, but that will not make it go away. It exists, and law enforcement will respond to it with or without laws to restrict their power. If law enforcement is unable to identify a terrorist act, it may decide that every act must be treated as a terrorist threat, so that if a person is murdered, perhaps all the members associated with the victim or suspect may be arrested and held under suspicion of murder. Or perhaps if a bomb threat is called in on a high school or college, the police may arrest every member of a school organization, because the law lacks the ability to identify certain groups as terrorist groups. By introducing law designed to identify specific terrorist acts and specific terrorist threats, it is possible to limit the power of law enforcement, while assuring that a very real and substantial threat is treated appropriately.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
I'm not dismissing terrorism as harmless. Why are you suggesting that I am?
AS far as the rest of your post, I'm not following. How does pre-Patriot Act law 'lack the ability to identify specific terrorist acts'? What I was referring to were the laws that allow them to circumvent due process once a target has been identified as terrorist related. I don't see how that has anything to do with identifying a terrorist.
The issue here is isn't whether they have the power to identify terrorist suspects, its whether they have to play by the same rules once they've done so. I don't think it's necessary to start making exceptions. I also think it's dangerous, because the definition of terrorist is so flexible, and will become moreso if we allow it.
All I'm objecting to is the notion that terrorism should be handled any differently than any other act of violence. When all the rhetoric is stripped away, the administration's argument is this: "If we had the power go after suspects, even our own citizens, without the encumberance of due process we could be much more effective in stopping terrorism."
Well, duh. They'd be more effective at stopping pretty much any kind of crime with such an approach. The KGB could tell you that. But if we give in to that way of thinking, haven't the terrorists won?
The whole point of terrorism is to promote fear and disrupt our lives with a state of emergency that extends far beyond the actual act. They try to leverage isolated attacks so that they cause general panic and inhibit our lives far out of proportion to the actual damaged caused. Why should we help them with this task by allowing it to eat away at the foundations of our freedom?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That’s rather imaginative.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hmm. You said it didn't exist. You said you didn't post it. You said it wasn't withdrawn. You said it might have been withdrawn because of accuracy concerns. Now you're saying it wasn't w/drawn by the government. Finn- did I EVER say it was w/drawn "by the government". Which position are you taking? Pick one. Any one. And stop contradicting yourself.
Quote:The head of the FBI counterterrorism did not, however, testify that “eco-terrorism” was, as you claimed, “More than the threat from al Qaida.”
Originally posted by SignyM:
How does it not? The head of FBI counterterrorism testifies that eco-terrorism is one of the top priorities of the FBI.
Quote:I don’t know who publishes the London Times or the BBC, but there’s nothing in that article about Bush lying. Whatever evidence that you see here would seem to be your imagination.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Is the London Times good enough for you? www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
Oh, I know- the London Times is published by conspiracy nuts, kind of like the BBC.
Quote:Neither one would seem to support your argument. Both suggest that “eco-terrorism” is a serious threat; neither seems to suggest that it is more serious then Al Qaeda. That’s like the third time, I’ve said that.
Originally posted by SignyM:
except for the BBC and Hero's posts
Quote:That’s your imagination.
Originally posted by SignyM:
When you baselessly accuse people of supporing terrorism, then it is intimidation
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is what you said:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I'm not dismissing terrorism as harmless. Why are you suggesting that I am?
“This is really the central problem of the debate. The Bush administration had sought to make a whole new classification of crime for the sole purpose of doing an end-run around due process. The fact of the matter is, everything that is bad about terrorism was already illegal. Every bit of it could, and should, have been prosecuted under the pre-9/11 laws.”
Now your speculation about the intent of the Bush administration aside, it seems to me that you don’t want law enforcement to deal with crimes committed in the furtherance of an act of terrorism identified as an act of terrorism. You would rather it simply identified as whatever crime it was? So if someone commits murder for the purpose of inciting terror, you want to simply prosecute and investigate that as a homicide, not as an act of terrorism?
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, I'm gonna take a shot here..you're in your very early thirties, and never was too politically minded as a teenager. Which gives you at most a decade and a half of political awareness (you can tell me if I'm wrong).
I was there during Viet Nam, Phoenix project, Watergate, Noriega, Iran-Contra, etc. I used to want every detail, every name connected, I filled my head so full o' facts I'm surprised I didn't go Scanners!
In this millenium I calmed down, corruption and conspiracy are like flies on cows, how ya gonna keep 'em away without killin' the cow?
Best we can do is to know that the man means us no harm, long as we pay him and don't ask him to explain his actions.
Oh, and never, ever defend yourself against a law official, no matter what he is doing to you.
Continue to vote, everyone.
Little pearls Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Mid thirties, but that’s just a few years off from very year thirties.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Finn, I'm gonna take a shot here..you're in your very early thirties, and never was too politically minded as a teenager. Which gives you at most a decade and a half of political awareness (you can tell me if I'm wrong).
As for the political stuff; I’m not sure what it means for a teenager to be “politically minded.” I don’t know very many teenagers, including myself, who really have the education to grasp political ideas. That being said, from about 18 to maybe late twenties, I was quite politically minded to the extent that it was possible in the opposite direction in many ways then I am today. I was what one might call a Postmodern Liberal, socialist, an idealist, an arteest. It was posh to be a Postmodern Liberal, but most of what I believed was basically propaganda; there was little substance to it. That all changed in graduate school, when I started to read widely in political circles, not just pundits but histories and sociological studies, and I discovered that much of what I had been told was largely untrue in one way or another. Hitler really wasn’t a “right-winger;” Reagan really wasn’t a “Nazi;” and Communism really doesn’t look good on paper. Tolerance is not exclusive to the Left and racism is not exclusive to the Right. I would say today that I didn’t become politically minded until graduate school. But that’s not what I would have told you twelve some-odd years ago: I would have told you that I was a die-hard Liberal. Who do you believe, me or me.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
..it seems to me that you don’t want law enforcement to deal with crimes committed in the furtherance of an act of terrorism identified as an act of terrorism.
I'm not even sure what this means. Could you clarify?
Quote:
You would rather it simply identified as whatever crime it was? So if someone commits murder for the purpose of inciting terror, you want to simply prosecute and investigate that as a homicide, not as an act of terrorism?
Yeah. That's essentially it.
My concern is with a policy that says we're going to throw out our basic civil protections merely at the suspicion of a certain type of crime. This bothers me for two reasons. First, it's very easy to expand those 'certain types of crime', as the original post points out. Second, because it puts our basic rights at the mercy of an accuser, which is bad mojo. (ie, if you wanna mess with someone good, just accuse them of being a terrorist, they won't even get due process)
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME