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 7 of 21
Quote:
Originally posted by infra172:
George Bush is destroying our democracy!
How?
The Patriot Act.
What's wrong with the Patriot Act?
It's taking away our civil liberties!
Why do you think that?
Because...um...
......
Why is that a bad thing?
Because George Bush is destroying our democracy!
That's for those of you who don't know what circular reasoning is.
I think liberals are cute. We should put them in zoos so they don't go extinct.
That's funny, but not quite as ridiculous as the fact that most of the representatives who voted for the Patriot Act did so without knowing what was in it. Do you?
Do you care to discuss it intelligently, or are you content with your nursery rhymes?
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
If I attended a rally or march of a group that supports violence, whether it be against people,property or government,be it a left or right group, there is legitimate reason to find me suspect.
In the cases of ALF and ELF, two organized groups that use violence or the threat of violence to achieve their goals against the civilian population, that says terrorism to me.
If you could write the law, what line or circumstances would someone or some group have to cross to be considered terrorists?
Opus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Opus-
What is the legal difference between violence and civil disobedience?
Anyway- I should have said, "Attending a rally also attended by a suspect group"
As you know, there are usually many organizations at any one rally. Some advocate civil disobedience, some are planning violence, and some are just airing their views. Sweeping everyone up in the same net because they happen to be in the same place for different reasons hardly seems reasonable.
I would prolly go with Hero's first multiple-part definition to categorize "terrorism", although I'm reasonably certain that the Patriot Act's definition isn't anywhere near that limited. (As I recall, it includes "disruption" of economic activity, which could mean that even civil disobedience, for example, would be considered a "terrorist" act.) And in the case of suspected terrorism, rather than just tossing out a very broad net it seems to me that the investigators SHOULD be able to show "probable cause" before getting a warrant. That requirement has been relaxed in the Patriot Act. Feel free to correct me if I'm misinformed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Every DAY tagger gangs (ie groups) have more turf shoot-outs (violence) and ruin more property that ALF /ELF in an entire year. Are they not then THE greatest threat in the US?
If I attended a rally or march of a group that supports violence, whether it be against people,property or government,be it a left or right group, there is legitimate reason to find me suspect.
In the cases of ALF and ELF, two organized groups that use violence or the threat of violence to achieve their goals against the civilian population, that says terrorism to me.
If you could write the law, what line or circumstances would someone or some group have to cross to be considered terrorists?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No, apparently the FBI has more important things to worry about!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm gone a few days and thing's get all manner of crazy.
Finn, sometimes I get to thinking that you are my ally. A libertarian, or at least a believer in the cause of liberty, and then you go and remind me that no, you are in fact a corporate conservative. One of the many enemies that lovers of liberty have.
I am going to come down mostly with sarge on this one. Murder is murder and should be prosecuted as murder. People how collude or assist with murder should be prosecuted as accessories. The state had all it needed to do this before 9/11. The failure to do so was the failure of the current and the last administrations, not the law. Furthermore, Islamic fundamentalism is an international movement, and mostly an extranational (to the US) movement. There are no laws to protect terrorists abroad from US military reprisal, only realpolitik protects them.
All the patriot act does is remove various due process protections that the citizenry have against state invasions of privacy and strike down habeas corpus. Hero approves of this because he feels that he's one of the good guys and should have all the tools necessary to stop the bad guys. Hero himself raised the specter of the true problem with the creepy joke (tell me it was joke, Hero) about his ex-girlfriend. Such power can, and will be abused, by people less ethical or more self-righteous than our Hero. Power unchecked inevitably becomes power abused.
The patriot act, and all other legislation that provides government with power unchecked to surveil and arrest its citizens, is the road to tyranny. Under the patriot act, and hero's broad application of the definition, Martin Luther King, the great pacifist of our age, could easily be labeled a terrorist. He blocked streets endangering the public safety you know.
I certainly might, under a slightly broader understanding, be considered a terrorist. Though I have never been accused of any violent or even destructive act, I could be labeled a terrorist, my rights stripped away, because I have acted in a peaceably, constitutionally defensible, but illegal manner to protest what I believe are illegal and evil acts of our government ( www.soaw.org). I blocked a street which might be construed as endangering the national defense.
Finn, my friend. Those who are peaceably, civilly disobedient can, under the current law, be labeled terrorists, surveiled, arrested in secret, and held namelessly. Under the law this could happen and there would be no recourse for the potential victims.
This is the policy you want to endorse?
You may not believe that abuse occurs, but daily news from Gitmo, (Newsweek aside) stands in stark relief to your belief. Can all this really be necessary? Can it be right? You can't preserve freedom by destroying it. Is it freedom you were trying to preserve? Or just safety? Just comfort? There may come a time when you have to choose. When the time comes I think I will choose freedom. How will you choose?
-Eli
If voting mattered, they'd make it illegal.
www.civil-unrest.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow, that ran long.
-Eli
If voting mattered, they'd make it illegal.
www.civil-unrest.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Every DAY tagger gangs (ie groups) have more turf shoot-outs (violence) and ruin more property that ALF /ELF in an entire year. Are they not then THE greatest threat in the US?
Nope. The Religious Right is the greatest threat to the U.S. - internally, anyway. Followed by medical malpractice and people who don't know how to drive. But none of these, including the gangs, are considered a terrorist threat, which was the subject here.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But 'terrorism' is by definition. Tagger gangs meet the definition. Why are they not then defined as terrorists? Is it because they are not (overtly) political?
Nope. The Religious Right is the greatest threat to the U.S. - internally, anyway. Followed by medical malpractice and people who don't know how to drive. But none of these, including the gangs, are considered a terrorist threat, which was the subject here.
So in this land created for personal, political and religious freedoms, are the political groups defined as terrorists, while the non-political groups are exempted?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
[BBut 'terrorism' is by definition. Tagger gangs meet the definition. Why are they not then defined as terrorists? Is it because they are not (overtly) political?
So in this land created for personal, political and religious freedoms, are the political groups defined as terrorists, while the non-political groups are exempted?
Here's a definition of terrorism, from U.S. Code Title 22:
"the term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents"
Looks like it's the "politically motivated violence" that does it. So a violent group that's not politically motivated is just criminals, not terrorists. A politically motivated group that is not violent wouldn't be terrorists either, although they might still be criminals if they provide support to terrorists.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME