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 15 of 21
Quote:The “war on poverty” could also be called an excuse to expand the powers of the government, and that has certainly been filled with its own brand of fear mongering. Gun control is also an attempt to expand the powers of government, and that is definitely an assault on Constitutional rights.
Originally posted by piratejenny:
but isn't it ironic that its being used for just that purpose,fear mongering to exspand the powers of government!!
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm new to the board (and a liberal probably opposed to you on most issues), but Finn, I've got to say you're a credit to your political affiliation. Congratulations on apparently being a fair and rational individual.
As for you guys here on my team: "moderation" is the word 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Criminal laws are there to let people know what is not acceptible.
Exactly. Among other things, laws tell law enforcment officials what is and isn't acceptable.
I'm sure you're old enough to remember Nixon examining the tax records of ppl he didn't like (protestors and politicians). And warrantless spies sneaking into people's houses and offices. At one point, an intelligence agency (CIA or NSA) admitted to attempting to track a certain notorious but legal protestor with spy satellites. Spy satellites, for god's sake!
Neither laws nor ethics will stop SOME people in government from abusing their powers, if they are intent on doing so. But if indiscriminate spying is legfalized, then not only will nosy-minded, politically-motivated officials start snooping and peeping, so will everyone else in law enforcment. Why not? It's legal!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I guess what I'm saying is how worthwhile can democracy be when it comes down to manipulating a population weened on public education and television? It just seems like bread and circuses from here on out.
Could be, but remember that the Civil War was fought to "end slavery". Politicians have been trying to manipulate the public since forever. Things keep on wobbling along.
And besides, what's your alternative?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
how worthwhile can democracy be when it comes down to manipulating a population weened on public education and television? It just seems like bread and circuses from here on out.
That's how I was brought up, and it wasn't 'till I was thirteen that I suspected Government of not having the public's interest foremost on it's agenda. And it wasn't 'till my mid twenties that I realized the depth and breadth of corruption and conspiracy in most governments. Took me a while to wake up. Unfortunatly most people have busy lives tryin' to get food on the table, and sound bites will be all they can make judgements on.
All we can do, I'm afraid, is keep barkin' out the truth of it all, to hopefully enlighten a sleeping soul here and there...it might add up.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the election; it's SHOWTIME! Now vote Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
remember that the Civil War was fought to "end slavery". Politicians have been trying to manipulate the public since forever. Things keep on wobbling along.
And besides, what's your alternative?
Good point, Geezer.
As I see it, there is no alternative.
This here's our ride, let's make her run the best she can.
Yeah, I yell at my car, too Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Neither laws nor ethics will stop SOME people in government from abusing their powers, if they are intent on doing so. But if indiscriminate spying is legfalized, then not only will nosy-minded, politically-motivated officials start snooping and peeping, so will everyone else in law enforcment. Why not? It's legal!
Hardly indiscriminate, as there is quite a bit of oversight involved. Do you think there is no one in Congress who will go over the required reports with a fine-tooth comb looking for something in the least bit bogus so they can attack the administration?
It's an interesting way that you parse it. Everyone in law enforcement is unethical enough to use the law in ways it is obviously not intended to be used, with no fear of eventual review, but not unethical enough to just ignore it altogether.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I guess what I'm saying is how worthwhile can democracy be when it comes down to manipulating a population weened on public education and television? It just seems like bread and circuses from here on out.
Could be, but remember that the Civil War was fought to "end slavery". Politicians have been trying to manipulate the public since forever. Things keep on wobbling along.
And besides, what's your alternative?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
Actually the civil war was fought to preserve the union, and effectively ruined the federal system in which the national governement was limited to enumerated powers.
-Eli
If voting mattered, they'd make it illegal.
www.civil-unrest.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Do you think there is no one in Congress who will go over the required reports with a fine-tooth comb looking for something in the least bit bogus so they can attack the administration?
Your question has two parts. (1) No, I'm not particularly expecting anyone in Congress to look through all those reports. If they couldn't be bothered to read the Act in the first place, why should I think that they will actively pursue its implementation? and (2) Under the Patriot Act, VERY LITTLE is "bogus". You can't prosecute on something "looking bogus". I've ALSO been in civil service for a good number of year (25 years in the Enforcement end of a regulatory agency) and it would be a rare civil servant who would go out on a limb to raise a fuss about something that was formally legal.
Quote:
It's an interesting way that you parse it. Everyone in law enforcement is unethical enough to use the law in ways it is obviously not intended to be used, with no fear of eventual review, but not unethical enough to just ignore it altogether.
Actually, that's the way you parsed it. What I'm hearing you say (or THINK I'm hearing you say) is "Don't worry about the Patriot Act. Law enforcement officials will still more-or-less adhere to pre-Patriot Act ethics and carry out the least amount of surveillance necessary, even though indiscriminate surveillance is now legal." It seems to me that on the one hand, you're agreeing that the Patriot Act scope is too broad and surveillance should not be implemented using the full scope, but on the other hand we should trust our government not to test the margins of the new law.
What I'm saying is that the Patriot Act ITSELF "legalizes" unreasonable search and seizure (it has not been fully tested in the Supreme Court) and that it violates both the spirit and the text of the Constitution. And I question why ANYONE would support a law that allows "relevant to ongoing investigation" surveillance of non-suspects and for trivial reasons such as cyber crimes. I also wonder where you will stand on Patriot II, which even Hero says "goes too far". (Don't forget, he was the one who was joking- at least I hope he WAS joking about serving a 2 AM subpoena to his ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend.)
So far, I've heard a lot of excuses about the Patriot Act. Some of them are inaccurate, and some of them even contradict each other: It only applies to suspected terrorists (not true), it'll all work out in the end, it's happened before, "trust the government to look out for your rights"... argued back to back with "It won't stop abusive invasion of privacy anyway" (A reassuring comment, if I ever heard one!). I'm not hearing any compelling reasons why I should give up my constitutional privacy rights under Patriot Act I. And if I can't rationalize Patriot Act I, why I should give up even more privacy rights under Patriot Act II?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CHRISISALL
Quote:It took me a lot longer to get there. You learn quickly.
And it wasn't 'till my mid twenties that I realized the depth and breadth of corruption and conspiracy in most governments.
On the general topic of why we should trust the government to restrain itself under the PATRIOT Act and PATRIOT II, it reminds me of a joke:
how do people say 'f*ck you' ?
......
'trust me.'
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME