Renewing the Patriot act

Defender · Post by **Defender** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:36 pm

Looks like Dubya wants to renew the Patriot act (which is set to expire this year)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/09/ ... index.html

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 4:18 pm

I say no. Time to re-write that one.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 4:28 pm

1) does it surprise anybody that Bush would want to renew it?

2) I agree with Will, and I'll go a little farther -- rewrite it AND rename it. It got so much bad press that whatever good aspects it may have had, it's not likely to pass under the same name.

Vindicator · Post by **Vindicator** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:08 pm

ABC News says that 59% of Americans support renewing the Patriot Act.

TheCope · Post by **TheCope** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 6:47 pm

Whatever.
I ain't a rich person, I can't make laws. But I sure wish they would drop the marketing aspect of these acts, operations, and wars.

We ain't buying hamburgers here... get all the ★■◆● borg about it and give these things numbers ala "operation 37165-4".

The cheese factor is making me sick.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 7:31 pm

I'm with the ACLU. 90% of it is fine, but there are specific lines that violate the constitution/bill of rights.

Plus, lose the doublespeak name. Man, when this came out I was scared things were going to get even worse and we were going to get even more 1984 laws. Patriot Act -- Act that removes fundamental privelages in the Bill of Rights--Yeah, like that's patriotic!

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 8:03 pm

What does it remove from the Bill of Rights?

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 9:01 pm

Oh, it's not just RENEWING the Patriot Act, Bush actually wants to STRENGTHEN it!

LMFAO @ George "Totalitarian" Bush.

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 8:24 pm

i didn't realise the patriot act was temporary.
not that it matters, if it's going to be renewed.

Vindicator · Post by **Vindicator** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:18 pm

bash wrote:What does it remove from the Bill of Rights?

http://www.bordc.org/resources/repeal.pdf

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:56 pm

That link freezes Firefox for some reason. Perhaps you could post some researchable passages from the PDF.

From a quick news search of some of the directors and advisors I don't hold out much hope for an objective or balanced appraisal. Chosen randomly, one advisor (Zinn) is described by Wikipedia thusly: "Howard Zinn is an influential American historian and political scientist, whose political philosophy incorporates ideas from Marxism, anarchism, socialism, and social democracy. Together with Noam Chomsky (with whom he has collaborated on several books and speaking engagements), Zinn is among the most well-known figures of the radical left in the United States."

um, OK!

Lot's of spooky *threats* talked about on the BORDC site but not much substance beyond fearmongering, as far as I could determine. I'm not claiming that abuses couldn't occur but I'm more interested in actual instances where the PA has already proven erosive to protected rights.

Vindicator · Post by **Vindicator** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:18 pm

right click, save as?

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:42 pm

That worked but my Acrobat Pro 7 tryout was expired so I uninstalled it and it also uninstalled my legit (sorta) copy of Acrobat 6 (which I no longer have the source files for). *sigh* I'll grab the free reader later and search the pdf for anything I can hang an opinion on.

Update: Speculative fearmongering. It presents potential scenarios for abuse culled from the imaginations of it's authors. Wake me when an actual abuse occurs.

Skyalmian · Post by **Skyalmian** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 1:51 pm

bash wrote:Update: Speculative fearmongering. It presents potential scenarios for abuse culled from the imaginations of it's authors. Wake me when an actual abuse occurs.

That Document wrote:It creates a new crime of domestic terrorism that is so broadly defined that it may be applied to citizens acting legally to express their dissent.

Bingo.

Wait 3 years. By then there will be a somewhat decent amount of resistance nationwide going on to the slow lockdown. Anyone who complains of government corruption and forcefully resists will be deemed a "domestic terrorist" and nailed. Some people recently drew the final line in the sand with the National ID Card.

Even if there are abuses now, they won't let you know. They do their best to paint themselves in the best possible light.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 3:11 pm

bash wrote:Wake me when an actual abuse occurs.

By then it will be too late.

bash · Post by **bash** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 3:53 pm

Yes, of course, because then we'll ALL BE IN THE GULAG!!!

zzzZZZ

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:19 pm

" Anyone who complains of government corruption and forcefully resists will be deemed a "domestic terrorist" and nailed."

So why aren't Kennedy,Kerry & H. Klinton locked up by now?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 6:08 pm

Simple Wood. they're working for the same team while placating the general populace.

have you ever seen a politician arrested for anything?

Skyalmian · Post by **Skyalmian** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 6:53 pm

bash · Post by **bash** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:15 pm

Ooooh, it's sounding uber-super-venti-spookier all the time. :fear: The truth is out there!

zzzZZZ

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 9:50 pm

zzzZZZ

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 9:52 pm

yea go ahead and keep sleeping. just don't whine when you wake up.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:47 pm

Bash, I will track your first question later. It was something I checked two years ago.

For now I ask, why do we have to sit and wait for an abuse to happen? What a terrible policy. So *after* government has grabbed authority, you propose a change.

Bah, I prefer a pre-emptive strike on the government. If anyone can't handle power, it's governemnt. It *will* be abused at some point. It's only a matter of time.

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:59 pm

bash wrote:It presents potential scenarios for abuse culled from the imaginations of it's authors. Wake me when an actual abuse occurs.

wow, i find this stance kinda scary. Shouldn't laws - if this is what the Act is - be built in a way that prevents further abuse by closing any loopholes? If there are loopholes shouldn't they work on closing them before renewing it? Otherwise it appears as if these holes are there for a purpose.

Defender · Post by **Defender** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:51 pm

Pandora wrote:
bash wrote:It presents potential scenarios for abuse culled from the imaginations of it's authors. Wake me when an actual abuse occurs.
wow, i find this stance kinda scary. Shouldn't laws - if this is what the Act is - be built in a way that prevents further abuse by closing any loopholes? If there are loopholes shouldn't they work on closing them before renewing it? Otherwise it appears as if these holes are there for a purpose.

Why close them when they can be further used for the government's own agend?

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:04 am

bash wrote:Update: Speculative fearmongering. It presents potential scenarios for abuse culled from the imaginations of it's authors. Wake me when an actual abuse occurs.

I'm sure some of the colonialists said the same thing before the revolutionary war.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:17 am

MD: I'm also sure some germans said the same thing before the Nazis came.

Those who fail to heed the lessons of History are doomed to repeat them

Defender · Post by **Defender** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:55 pm

Bottom line is, don't grant the government power you don't expect them to use.
Because they will at some point, use it.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed Jun 22, 2005 5:12 pm

Defender,

blindly, we Americans granted these powers in the wake of a terrorist attack, we turned our backs and let bush have "whatever necessary powers to protect the Union"...pretty stupid mistake in hindsight.