Bush dictatorship wins. Constitution is dead.

[Felix_Nietsche]

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ptmusic]

Is your entire account devoted to hating Bush-haters?

-ptmusic

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You do realize laws are reviewed by the supreme court and they decide if its unconstitutional or notm sofar this one has stood.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fishooks,

I have a standing challenge to anyone in this forum to cite me a specific article of the Patrtiot Act they feel is either a) an unprecedented extension of gov't power , b) has personally affected their personal freedome, or c) has been abused in some fashion. The best response Ive gotten yet is a link to a page of ACLU talking points. Its a perfect example of people mouthing platitudes about personal liberty and civil rights abuses without real knowledge of laws/regulations in question.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poll: Support for Patriot Act shrinks the more people know about it

(Washington-AP, Aug. 30, 2005 Updated 2:52 PM) _ Fewer than half of Americans know the purpose of the Patriot Act, and the more they know about it the less they like it, according to a poll released Monday.

Fewer than half of those polled, 42 percent, are able to correctly identify the law's main purpose of enhancing surveillance procedures for federal law enforcement agencies, according to the poll conducted by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis at the University of Connecticut.

Almost two-thirds of all Americans, 64 percent, said they support the Patriot Act. But support dropped to 57 percent among those who could accurately identify the intent of the legislation.

The survey was intended to take a closer look at the high levels of public support the Patriot Act has gotten in various polls, said Samuel Best, the center's director.

"The Patriot Act has been a very visible piece of legislation," Best said. "We wanted to see if people had an understanding of the act that differentiated it from the war on terrorism generally."

"Most people don't distinguish the Patriot Act from the war on terror in general," Best said.

The House and Senate have voted to extend provisions of the Patriot Act that were set to expire at the end of this year, making many of those provisions permanent. A conference committee is scheduled to try this fall to work out differences in the House and Senate versions of the legislation.

Some provisions of the Patriot Act are supported by a solid majority, while others got far less support.

The provision that permitted federal agents:

--To use information collected in foreign intelligence investigations for domestic crime investigations was supported by 81 percent.

--To monitor names and addresses of Internet communications in criminal investigations was supported by 69 percent.

--To tap any telephone line a terrorist suspect might use rather than specifying particular phone lines was supported by 62 percent.

--To require libraries to turn over records in terrorism investigations unbeknownst to the patrons was supported by 53 percent.

--To require banks to turn over records to the government without judicial approval was supported by 43 percent.

--To conduct secret searches of Americans' homes without informing the occupants for an unspecified period of time was supported by 23 percent.

The popularity of the law seems to dwindle for measures that intrude into Americans' personal lives.

"Once people see these things hit increasingly close to home, they become more and more troubled," Best said.

Three-fourths said they think that law enforcement will frequently or occasionally use the law to investigate crimes other than terrorism. Almost as many, 72 percent, said they expect it will be used to investigate legitimate political and social groups. People are evenly divided on whether the law has prevented terrorist attacks.

While numerous polls have indicated widespread support for the Patriot Act, Best said his research suggests "people are pretty torn on where they stand."

The results are based on polling of 800 adults from Aug. 4-22 and have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

[/ QUOTE ]
All of the bolded parts are unprecedented, unconstitutional extensions of U.S. government power. Have they affected my personal freedom? I don't know because govt. agents don't have to tell me when these provisions are being used. This secret police crap is not cool. It worked for Stalin though.

An archive of Patriot Act abuses.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
I love when the ultra-liberal Michael Moore Clan starts comparing the U.S. and especially Bush to the Nazi’s and the good old Russian Gulags.

I have a lot of liberal and conservative friends way out on both sides of the fringe… and so far… none of them have been gun-downed in the streets for their opinions. Nor have their 2+2 posts been censored by evil 1984 Government Hackers.

Our personal freedoms are always on a pendulum… that’s the down fall of living in a democracy of 220 million people. Unfortunately… we swung so far to the left over the last 15 years… 9/11 and other such attacks were as difficult as stealing a 12 pack of Coors at your local Ralph’s.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know that is ridiculous, 9/11 was not easy to carry out, Americans have a long history of extreme unjustified paranoia, you bought the programme. I don't compare the US to the Nazis either, but where ever you are going you will go one step at a time, everytime they want to screw you out of something they will feed you a spoon full of sugar to help you swallow it. Hey its for your own good, why not go the whole hog, have everybodys biometric details on file, torture everyone who lives next door to a Muslim, who cares anyway, at least 'the terrorists won't win'.

Okay so your personal freedoms are on a pendulum, who decides which way the pendulum swings? Governments are answerable to the people, not the other way around, Bush is now making the first step to change that.

Mack

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yeah...so I guess, by your logic...we shouldn't follow the Constitution since it wasn't written in our time. There's no way that something two hundred years old could still be relevant, could it?

[/ QUOTE ]

The constitution stopped being relavent a long time ago, we just pretend it still is becuase it makes us feel better.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow! Just... WOW!

[tek]

My point is the governemnt sets up a problem whose solution is the course of action they want to impliment, but can't do so without the emergency.

Example 1: Get the US into (insert name of war here). Solution: Let some ship(s) get get bombed and torpedoed.

Example 2: Take away our freedom and get us into the gulf war part 2. Solution: Blow up Manhattan.

"in the mean time though you can call the American Communist Party"

Nice try. I don't subscribe to communist or socialist (communism in a hurry) philosophy, but people like the Bush family do. Socialism, as we have seen from the russians are just a way for the elite to control power and money at the expense of the majority of the populace.

The erosion of freedom in this country is necessary for people like the Bushes to safeguard the wealth so we don't riot or protest our declining economic and political condition in the future.

Since you gave me a facetious suggestion, I'll give you one (and you probably won't get it). Go to the next bohemian grove conclave and party with your Bush family (and others) elitist mentors [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[tek]

Thanks for the support post and also to DocManhattan for the email.

At this point I think we should just start planning for our futures and forget about helping naysayers. Just like the people on the Titanic who at a certain point had to let the people who chose to stay on board go down while they jumped into the lifeboats.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
All of the bolded parts are unprecedented, unconstitutional extensions of U.S. government power.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
--To monitor names and addresses of Internet communications in criminal investigations ...


[/ QUOTE ]

We have always had provisions to monitor communications in the course of a criminal investigation. Our laws frankly werent designed with the Internet in mind and part of the impetus for the Patriot Act was to do so.

[ QUOTE ]
To tap any telephone line a terrorist suspect might use rather than specifying particular phone lines

[/ QUOTE ]

This is hardly unprecedented. The roving wiretap has been used in criminal investigations for about 20 years or so. It came about in response to the rise of current technology and was most often used in drug cases. In 1986 Congress relaxed the particularity requirement to obtain these wiretaps in order to be able to tie surveillance to a particular indvidual rather than one particular phone line. The Patriot Act does the same thing.

[ QUOTE ]
To require libraries to turn over records in terrorism investigations unbeknownst to the patrons

[/ QUOTE ]

Their has always been wide latitude in law enforcement to seize business records pursuant to a criminal investigation. This authority can and has been used to seize library records by grand jury order. Similarly, FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) has always had limited ability to seize records too. The Patriot Act expanded this to include all tangible items. Note however that the Patriot Act authority is much more restrictive than the authority to do this for a criminal investigation. A grand jury has almost unlimited authority to subpoena business records and such. Under the Patriot Act the agent must receive judicial approval and it can only be used in cases involving foreign intelligence gathering or international terrorism.

[ QUOTE ]
To require banks to turn over records to the government without judicial approval...

[/ QUOTE ]

This isnt in the Patriot Act. See above regarding libraries. Same rules apply to bank records.

[ QUOTE ]
To conduct secret searches of Americans' homes without informing the occupants for an unspecified period of time...

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, a law enforcement tool that has been around for quite some time. Delayed notification has been upheld by the Courts time and again as being completely Constitutional. The Patriot Act extends this ability to terrorism investigations and codifies into a single standard. It isnt an unlimited power, as the request must fit certain conditions in order to be obtained.

[ QUOTE ]
An archive of Patriot Act abuses.

[/ QUOTE ]

This archive consists of a)cases which didnt actually involve the Patriot Act b) cases which fall entirely under the scope of the Patriot Act or c) cases in which the Patriot Act was allegedly invoked. Hardly damning.

[bobman0330]

Why do you claim that these things are unconstitutional? The only provision that they could violate is the 4th Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure. However, every provision except the bank records one requires a search warrant based on probable cause. Ergo, not unreasonable. A request for bank records is not a search for constitutional purposes, because it's information you willingly gave to a third party.