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 12 of 21

PREV PAGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT PAGE

SERGEANTX

Sunday, May 22, 2005 4:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
...If violent gangs are as bad as Rue and others have suggested, and I don’t necessarily disagree, is there really something wrong with using the expanded tools of the Patriot Act to deal with them?

Perhaps you’ve never considered the issue, maybe? Perhaps you’ve not stopped to consider that maybe it might be a good use of the Patriot Act to help get rid of some of these violent gangs that have caused so many neighborhoods so much problem?

Well, this is the first time you've been clear. You're suggesting that the constitutional exceptions made in the Patriot Act, specifically to address the terrorist threat, be made the general rule. That's pretty extreme and I doubt you'd even get many Bush supporters to back you on that one.

You might want to take a little closer look at what you're actually supporting here. But you seem reticent to do that.

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, May 22, 2005 4:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Well, this is the first time you've been clear. You're suggesting that the constitutional exceptions made in the Patriot Act, specifically to address the terrorist threat, be made the general rule. That's pretty extreme and I doubt you'd even get many Bush supporters to back you on that one.

You might want to take a little closer look at what you're actually supporting here. But you seem reticent to do that.

And now you know why I didn’t come out and say it. Rhetorical questions should be rhetorical questions, not ammunition.

The threats from violent crime whether it be terrorists or gangs are real. Not fear mongering designed to expand the powers of the government.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

SERGEANTX

Sunday, May 22, 2005 4:08 PM

huh?

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

SIGMANUNKI

Sunday, May 22, 2005 9:20 PM

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

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

GEEZER

Sunday, May 22, 2005 11:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

The parallels are indeed disturbing. Dubya seems to have borrowed 'honest' Abe's playbook.

Yet we've managed 140 years of democracy since Lincoln's time, with improvements such as universal sufferage, equal rights, inclusion of a plethora of immigrants, etc. Somehow this gives me reason to believe that the democratic process is stronger than relatively slight (in the overall scheme of things) swings one way or the other.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SERGEANTX

Monday, May 23, 2005 5:06 AM

I'll drink to that!

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

AERONSTORM

Monday, May 23, 2005 1:17 PM

Okay, just a response to your title of this thread:

We are NOT a democracy. We are a democratic republic. We practice representative democracy, not true full-on democracy. We elect folks to make decisions for us. Could you imagine everyone in the US having to vote on every single issue (down to the little House rules and such)? It would be a mess.

Just a little note from a history buff.

SIGNYM

Monday, May 23, 2005 3:04 PM

Why should anyone argue in favor of reducing civil rights? (There are reasons)

BTW- thank you for that distinction. In California we do have a path for "true" democracy called the initiative process. I'm not sure that it results in good laws, but is sure keeps politics interesting!

HERO

Monday, May 23, 2005 7:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Why should anyone argue in favor of reducing civil rights? (There are reasons)

Hmm...

There are many reasons, cases actually. I myself, as a prosecutor, have successfully argued in favor of reducing civil rights.

Here's my favorite example.

Man beats wife. Wife gets an order of protection barring Man from making threats, following, harrassing, etc. Man makes threats against wife. At trial for violating the order, Man asserts his 1st Amendment Rights. Are threats against an abused spouse protected speech? (My answer was damned clever, I argued that he should have challanged the validity of the order at the time it was issued, not later in a subsequent criminal action, its a legal thing about respecting prior judgements, very slick, but the fracking court ignored it and instead adopted my 'valid limitation on free speech' argument.)

There's another similar case where the courts barred a man from picketing his wife's residence in protest of his child support payments, because his "otherwise acceptable behaivor" was inappropriate and threatening in this context.

Or the classic example: shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

What about requiring a permit before holding a demonstration?

Or taxing a church enganged in political action or for-profit ventures?

Or using infrared technology to watch the goings on in a private home? Come on, its non-invasive.

How bout walking a drug sniffing dog around the outside of a car during a routine traffic stop and without any cause to suspect the presense of drugs?

Is it reasonable for the police to 'stop and frisk' random people on the sidewalk?

Should a business have to provide all of its business records on request to a State's Consumer Protection Agency?

Can police use your name and ID as the alias provided to an undercover stripper?

Can they take your home and build mini-mall or maybe a recycling center?

The law books are filled with reasons. Instead we should take a look at the standards each of these reasons must meet to be found valid. Is a legitimate govt purpose being served? Is the rule/law/whatever narrowly tailored to meet that interest? Etc, etc. This country has been around along time. In that time the courts have found a LOT of laws to be unconstitutional. Others have been overturned by the legislators or by shifting public opinion.

The Sedition Act, the Alien and Sedition Act, the Fugitive Slave Act, the Red Scare, the 18th Amendment, Senate Unamerican Activites Committee, Jim Crowe laws, etc, etc, and so and hey, didn't the House used to Filibuster stuff too? The Patriot Act fits right in. But the further we get from 9/11 the more we seek to reign in our understandubly zealous efforts. Detainees now get lawyers and hearings. Some get trials and charges. Patriot II will probably pass, but unlike Partiot I it will be successfully chalanged in court, because it goes too far. So stop worrying and let the Contitution work its magic like its been doing for 200 or so years. If it doesn't...I'll be right there with you, with my legal semi-automatic assault weapon in hand.

Thats the ultimate beauty of our system. We can change it. How about we scrap our present system and adopt a new one based upon 'The Apprentice' TV show? This weeks challange, two teams of aspiring lawmakers try to reform social security. One will succeed, the other faces a jury of randomly selected voters in the boardroom where one person will be "impeached". We can call it "The Legislator".

H

PIRATEJENNY

Tuesday, May 24, 2005 6:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the government manufactured some type of incident 9/11 like to really get the ball rolling!!!

You're not the first person to have said that. One person at work, first thing he said when he heard that Bush was spending a lot of time at Crawford was... "That would be a good time to get rid of Washington and declare a national emergency." And yeah, I know ppl call him a conspiracy nut (including me sometimes ) but if you would have told me six years ago that the Republicans would have rigged two elections in a row, invaded two countries, bankrupted the Federal budget, and passed the Patriot Act (which BTW they had sitting in draft form BEFORE 9-11), attacked Social Security, created a department of Homeland Security (Homeland Security! I mean, how Tuetonic can you get???) and leapt into the arms of the religious right I would have said you were even more paranoid than me. So, I guess I've learned not to dscount ANYTHING from this administration.

I knew it would be bad when the Bush administration got into office, I said two years before Bush was even elected , that if he got into office, we would be going to war with Iraq I also knew that some incident would precurse it

On the day of 9/11 when I turned on my T.v....I said My Gawd what have they done!! those were my exact words...meaning( Bush Administration) and no it didn't come as any shock or surprise to me when the country found out the Bush administration knew about 9/11 beforehand and did nothing to stop it!!

I personally would be willing to take it a step further and say not only did they know about it, but they had a hand in it..but thats just me!!

I also said before Bush Jr. got into office that the economy would get bad, that one was a no brainer!!!..what I didn't foresee was the stolen elections and the black box voting and I was so naive that I didn't think it would happen a 2nd time!!

As for the PATRIOT ACT!! your absolutely right it was sitting in Draft before 9/11 Bush Sr. had already started implementing parts of it as early as 1990 through National Security Directives.

They've been planning all of this for years, Clinton getting elected was a fluke that they didn't Plan on or exspect to happen!! and his being elected interrupted their Plan for 8 years but they were going to make damn sure it didn't happen again, thats why in 2000 they made sure Bush was going to get into office one way or another and they succeeded

now my only question is, are they going to cause and declare a state of emergency before George Bush jr. term is up..or are they going to wait until Jeb Bush is in office before they do it

and I can garuntee you right now, that if a state of emergency isn't declared before Bush Jr. is out of office that Jeb Bush will get into office one way or another..just like George Bush jr. got into office one way or another, and sometime during his time in office they will Declare a state of Emergency, and thats when the crap really is going to hit the fan..

PREV PAGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT PAGE