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 13 of 21
Orginal post by
Finn mac Cumhal
[qoute]Imaginative rant, but I'm not sure it's helping your clarity of vision in this case.
Call it a rant or whatever you want..but just remember my post, because all this stuff is happening and will happen..and I'll get no pleasure in having the last laugh!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
all I see here is you trying to rationalize giving up your freedom. I can't help but think of that Benjermin Franklin Quote!! Those who give up their freedom in the name of security deserve neither security nor liberty..or something to that effect!!!
I don't really want to get into this conversation as it doesn't pretain directly to my country, but if you want a t-shirt with that quote on:
http://www.openbsd.org/tshirts.html#7
oh thanks and the orginal quote is
They that can give up liberty to obtain a little tempory safety, deserve neither liberty or safety
Benjermin Franklin 1706-1790
wise words from a wise man we should all take heed!!
It's more to do with crypto, but still on the freedom topic.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Pirate Don't you hate it when you keep predicting bad stuff and you wind up being unerringly, depressingly correct? B4 2000, my SO predicted that we would be in a recession and a war.
One of the ways of testing a hypothesis is if your hypothesis can be used to amke accurately predictions. My hypothesis is that Bush&Co are lying SOBs who only have their selfish interests at heart, and that they think NOTHING of sending kids to die- or get pieces of them blown off- in unecessary wars, saddling the future generations with mountains of debt, abridging the Consitution and reducing individual rights until we are all subservient to coporate/state interests, and rigging elections and destroying our political insitutions as long as they get to line their pockets and control the oil. Meanwhile, those who believe in the great father's benevolence are more or less left to rationalize each new outrage as best they can.
DANG I hate it when I'm right!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero- As usual, I don't have time to get into great detail about your reply. The throttle of my life is stuck wide open again. I have a couple of questions/ comments tho.
Your reply refers to both rulings/ verdicts and laws/ legislation. Unless a case achieves such notoriety that it works its way up thru the court system and becomes precedent, a ruling only affects an individual.
Which leads me to my first questions:
At what point does a ruling achieve sufficient status to become precedent? At the Supreme Court level?
It seems actually relatively straightforward to change legislation. But how are "precedents" modified, and at what level? By changing the nature of the ppl sitting on the bench?
To sum up the cases/ rulings that you list, would it be fair to say that it is correct to abridge the rights of one person (eg. liberty, free speech) if they impinge on a greater right of another individual. Got no problem there.
As far as the "rights" of business- As far as I know, the only reason why businesses were granted "due process" was because of some preamble to a ruling about some railroad case vis a vis the 14th amendment. In MY view, companies should NOT have the same free speech, privacy etc. rights as individuals. So, yes, in my opnion a business should be forced to turn over their records as required- EXCEPT when it becomes PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE. At that point, you are impinging on the privacy rights of individuals.
And, to refine my initial question: What are the reasons for limiting civil liberties BY LAW? (Finn alluded to one already.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And if it doesn’t happen, there’s always tomorrow, or the next day to worry about. That’s why global warming and the book of Revelations are so popular.
Originally posted by piratejenny:
Call it a rant or whatever you want..but just remember my post, because all this stuff is happening and will happen..and I'll get no pleasure in having the last laugh!!
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And, to refine my initial question: What are the reasons for limiting civil liberties BY LAW? (Finn alluded to one already.)
Maybe not Hero's POV, but this states it pretty well for me.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
...it is correct to abridge the rights of one person (eg. liberty, free speech) if they impinge on a greater right of another individual. Got no problem there.
Sort of like the old saw, "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins."
My right to keep and bear arms may end if I use arms in the commission of a crime.
My group's right to peaceably assemble may lose out if we can't provide enough facilities to insure their health and safety, or the safety of others in the area.
My freedom of religion does not allow me to sacrifice virgins to the sun god, or kill unbelievers, even if that's what my belief requires.
My right of privacy may be impinged upon if I'm suspected of supporting or belonging to a criminal organization, whether it be just plain crooks or terrorists.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So- your right to privacy ends if you are SUSPECTED of being a terrorist or aiding terrorism. I could say- "Geezer, I suspect you of being a right-wing terrorist." Now- you're a suspect. So who judges whether the SUSPICION has enough merit to waive your rights, and on what grounds is that decision made?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I myself, as a prosecutor, have successfully argued in favor of reducing civil rights.
Hero, you can be amusing, even downright hi-larious. But sometimes I can't tell if you're serious or not.
That bit on another thread 'bout gettin' back at your ex-girlfriend or whatever usin' the law, I didn't know whether to chuckle, or wince in disgust...
Some folks grow up in a dangerous (physical or otherwise) environment and see rules as protection to the common man. Others grow up the same way, and see rules as something that serve the enforcers, not the common man. Both can be true at different times, but one thing is constant...
Power corrupts, dude, and you know the rest.
It's a balancing act Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So- your right to privacy ends if you are SUSPECTED of being a terrorist or aiding terrorism. I could say- "Geezer, I suspect you of being a right-wing terrorist." Now- you're a suspect. So who judges whether the SUSPICION has enough merit to waive your rights, and on what grounds is that decision made?
Well, that's THE question. Traditionally, we've required a judge to look at the grounds for the suspicion before any substantial change in the rules is allowed. The agency requesting special allowances had to show valid reason to suspect that the person whose rights were at stake had committed a crime.
With the Patriot Act, all the investigators have to show is that the particular surveillance might provide information 'relevant to an ongoing investigation'. That's a pretty wide door in my opinion. Much more open to abuse than the previous requirements.
Still, it's supposed to be limited terrorism investigations, which was the emergency rationale that justified the passage of the Patriot Act in the first place. The tricky part is how to keep this focused on terrorism. The topic of this thread, and the attitudes of 'people like Finn' make it clear that there are those who would like to see these new rules applied to a wider range of problems.
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:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So- your right to privacy ends if you are SUSPECTED of being a terrorist or aiding terrorism. I could say- "Geezer, I suspect you of being a right-wing terrorist." Now- you're a suspect. So who judges whether the SUSPICION has enough merit to waive your rights, and on what grounds is that decision made?
You probably have neither the training or the skills to identify possible criminal conspiracy, nor the authority to do anything about it, so I'm not too worried about your accusition.
In real life, this judgement is usually made by law enforcement officers at local, state, and federal levels based on the information they have. They have been doing it this way for quite a while. I'm not going to try and enumerate all the possible reasons because it would take a while and there's probably some I'd miss.
Up until Patriot Act I, any warrant for such surveillance was supposed to be signed by a judge. Now, in some circumstances relating to terrorism (possibly where quick action or possibly great discretion are involved), instead of having to find a compliant judge at midnight, a high-ranking (Federal, I think)law enforcement officer can issue the warrant. All such are (if I read the law right), subject to mandatory review.
Of course, this assumes you believe that law enforcement officers are actually obeying the law. If you don't, it doesn't really matter, does it? They could watch you illegally and you'd never know it.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME