Lack of Patriot Act hurts the UK

[bobman0330]

Do any of you people actually know what's in the PATRIOT act? I mean, good lord, someone posted a wikipedia link right there.

Are you seriously concerned that they're going to look at your library records just to oppress you for reading romance novels or playboy or whatever the hell it is you're concerned about?

It's not as if they'd have to:
A. Go before a federal court.
B. Show probable cause.
C. If they didn't want to notify you immediately, they'd have to show extenuating circumstances to delay notification. Then they'd have to notify you 90 days later.

I for one sure feel oppressed. Now quit making up these BS scenarios, and look at what the act is really for:

Suspected terrorist Mahmoud ibn Kalir (made-up Arab-sounding name) is living in the US, getting money from mysterious overseas Islamic charities, and talking to neighbors about "big things" that are going down soon. This is not a crime, so the FBI gets a wiretap (shockingly, this is a temporarily secret proceeding). He tells his overseas Islamic charity pals that he was reading books from the library about the "big thing" that's going down soon. None of this is evidence of a crime, so they look through his library records and see that he's recently checked out "High Explosives and You" and "Structual Weak Points of Tall Buildings." Fortunately, the PATRIOT act was repealed, so they send him a letter. "Mr. ibn Kalir: We recently searched your library records. Don't be concerned. Love, The FBI" Does this sound good to you?

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOL

Name one right you've had violated

-Matt


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You're right, i'd rather wait until its too late.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of people especially the younger members of society assume that their own government will never turn on them, that they will always be treated fairly, they only consider the obvious positive effects of such legislation, never consider it could happen to them one day. A fair system of laws is at the heart of western democracy, this takes us back 1000 years.

Mack

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Agreed,
If leaders who wants to make laws like the Patriotic Act are not kept in check by the population and thus escalate their efforts, the population will find that their government ultimately will be a bigger threat to them than terrorism.

Just look at McCarthyism. He made more harm than the American communists collectively managed to do.

[jcx]

Governments spying on its citizens is nothing new. The NSA has been doing it for years. 9-11 provided a great opportunity to make it nice and legal. With or without the Patriot Act, if the govt thinks you warrant surveillance you will get it.

I honestly don't know why the Europeans here would object to a Patriot-like act in their respective countries. You've turned over all right to defend yourself to the state and gladly handed in your guns. If your personal protection is solely the responsibility of a benevolent government, shouldn't that government have all the tools necessary to ensure you don't get blown to bits?

[mackthefork]

First you say this....

[ QUOTE ]
Governments spying on its citizens is nothing new. The NSA has been doing it for years. 9-11 provided a great opportunity to make it nice and legal. With or without the Patriot Act, if the govt thinks you warrant surveillance you will get it.


[/ QUOTE ]

then totally confuse me by saying this......

[ QUOTE ]
I honestly don't know why the Europeans here would object to a Patriot-like act in their respective countries.

[/ QUOTE ]

then lose all credibility by coming up with this gem.....

[ QUOTE ]
You've turned over all right to defend yourself to the state and gladly handed in your guns. If your personal protection is solely the responsibility of a benevolent government, shouldn't that government have all the tools necessary to ensure you don't get blown to bits?

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean come on we are safer in Europe precisely because everyone isn't armed, thats why we don't get shot so much as you Americans, and your guns didn't help on 9/11 so how could guns have helped us here? Governments are kind of like the terrorist themselves in that they use peoples fear to push agendas which should be left well alone. Also our government is no more benevolent then yours is.

Regards Mack

[Arnfinn Madsen]

This carry gun-argument falls into its own dirt, since murder rate in western Europe is lower than in the US; thus making it safer here.

Most our governments are not just naively watching terrorism happen, they have just decided that there are other things higher on the priority list than combating terrorism. Human rights being one.

[jcx]

I support an armed population not in the hope of thwarting all terrorism, as this is an achilles heel in any free society. The guns are to remind the government there is a line they shouldn't cross.

The question remains: Why would a society that has allowed, even welcomed, the government to take control of and regulate nearly every facet of their lives object to a Patriot Act?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

I don't know how it is in the UK, but here in Norway the Labour Party was in control of basically everything from the 50s to 70s. In the 90s it was revealed that they used the equivalent of CIA to control the communist inside their own party. A comission was set up to investigate and they found a lot of politically-motivated surveillance. A lot of the victims of surveillance were given the right to read their own files and some filed for compensation.

The politicians then decided that the only way to prevent it was to limit the police's options and closely monitor it. Our CIA now needs permission from other units before they can start wide-scale surveillance. Now we have no Patriotic Act but we also can feel confident that we will not be surveilled without good reason.

Power corrupts, thus all power must be held in check. Patriotic Act is IMO a way for the power to try to get out of that grip. Convenient? Yes. Healthy for society? No.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know how it is in the UK, but here in Norway the Labour Party was in control of basically everything from the 50s to 70s. In the 90s it was revealed that they used the equivalent of CIA to control the communist inside their own party. A comission was set up to investigate and they found a lot of politically-motivated surveillance. A lot of the victims of surveillance were given the right to read their own files and some filed for compensation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah same here people got access to files after they became open under the offical secrets act.

He is basically wrong, I don't want to argue about whether its better to have guns or not, that is skirting the issue, the point is the UK government interferes with the lives of UK citizens far less than the US government does with US citizens, we never had a Guantanamo, you had to have done something wrong to be arrested until recently, we don't do death penalty anymore (too many innocent people murdered by the state). I like the philosophy behind life in the USA, but its changing now, and not for the better, people need to look at whats happeneing and really think if its good for freedom and fairness.

Regards Mack

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
This carry gun-argument falls into its own dirt, since murder rate in western Europe is lower than in the US; thus making it safer here.

Most our governments are not just naively watching terrorism happen, they have just decided that there are other things higher on the priority list than combating terrorism. Human rights being one.

[/ QUOTE ]

1000 times more people died from Hospital Aquired infections in the UK in the last decade than were killed by terrorists. Sures it's important to prevent unnecessary suffering and deaths, but you are right, there are much bigger killers, and things that affect peoples daily lives much more than terrorism.

Mack