Patriot Act stuff

[Kaitain(UK)]

http://www.infowars.com/print_patriotact2_analysis.htm

I don't know enough about this to comment - but it sounds well dodgy to me...

[guohuen]

Just a final nail in the coffin. The first one was the national security act of 1947.

[ewallace]

I have produced two documentary films and written a book about what really happened on September 11th. The bottom line is this: the military-industrial complex carried the attacks out as a pretext for control. Anyone who doubts this just hasn’t looked at the mountains of hard evidence.
That part alone relieves that entire document of any evidence of credibility.

[Merryprankster]

ewallace,

I really don't think you're giving these ideas enough weight. I mean, c'mon! We all know that the masons want to take over the world, the bildersburg group runs finances the world over, the protocols of zion are not demonstrably false, and that I was the man on the grassy knoll...

I know, I recycled it, but I like it...

[ewallace]

What ever was I thinking? Did you know that MADD(Mothers Against Drunk Driving) is really a disgruntled group of ex-Budweiser employees that is just trying to bring the beer giant down by saying that alcohol is bad and actually impairs your driving, which can sometimes lead to loss of life?

[Kaitain(UK)]

so what's the real deal with this legislation then? I know nothing about it so I'm asking - how can legislation be pushed through that isn't debated in Senate or Congress? (if that's the case)

I didn't see the bit about blaming 9/11 on corporate baddies :)

[ewallace]

I'm not really sure, but I'd love to see it from a credible source before I form an opinion on it.

That's one of the great things about forums like these. It's pretty easy to dispell myths from uncredible sources.

[KC Elbows]

Okay, in response to a trend:

while I don't find any credible evidence that the our government blew up the twin towers, throwing in the grassy knoll bit reminded me of something I've noticed lately.

There seems to be this belief that whenever conspiracies ARE going down, that they'll be properly reported, cited, and easily researchable.

This really isn't the case. Conspiracies are a given, somewhere, there is a conspiracy going down right now, in the city you live in. Some sort of conspiracy is occuring, be it tax evasion scams, whatever, it's there.

The fact is, the vast majority of those actually convicted for conspiracy usually aren't convicted on as much evidence as other crimes require, because conspiracy is such a nebulous thing.

Generally, when you're talking about a government conspiracy, the people are more aware of it in a folklore sort of way than by press coverage.

Sort of like the JFK thing. Grassy knolls and all. Yet Warren himself expressed doubts in the investigation and results. Frankly, Brutus helping kill Caesar is a conspiracy theory. After all, who was allowed to linger near who wasn't involved? And then allowed to talk?

Without conspiracy theories, there are no conspiracies. Which is how conspirators like it. But chances are, there are conspiracies, and chances are high that certain government agencies, who conduct conspiracies as a matter of course, would occassionaly make the error in judgement to commmit such a conspiracy for personal gain or money.

Just had to pipe in in defense of well thought out conspiracy theories that make you think.

[FatherDog]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/29249.html

Here's a link to an actual, legitimate news source discussing the new proposal... which is a draft of a new bill, which hasn't been submitted to lawmakers yet. This means this is not even the final version that will be proposed yet, let alone the version that might eventually be passed.

That said, the fact that the current administration is even considering asking that this kind of sweeping new power for the Justice Department by passed into law is a bit worrisome. But it's certainly no cause for panic... yet.

[Ford Prefect]

Wow. That guys is truly nutty! lol @ him taking the plot of a Lone Gunman episode. (a small part of gov't feined a terrorist strike by crashing a plane into the WTC to premote a new war and give defense contractors $$$)

In all seriousness though, this draft most definately cuts into our civil liberties. I'm already planning on writing all my reps and asking them (ie harassing them) to not ratify anything even remotely resembling the act. The powers it gives gov't are scary. As that is written, it gives the gov't power to strip US citizens of their citizenship and deport them if the knowingly or unknowingly aide a terrorist orginization. That's crazy! That's only the tip of the iceberg too. I urge all of you to get all the facts and write to your reps as well.

[KC Elbows]

Well, no one would ever abuse that power.:D

[FatherDog]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
As that is written, it gives the gov't power to strip US citizens of their citizenship and deport them if the knowingly or unknowingly aide a terrorist orginization.

On the other hand, if everyone who ever gave money to an organization associated with the IRA got deported, the rents in your neighborhood would probably go way down, Ford. :D

[@PLUGO]

"think outside the box, but never outside the constitution."

heheheh...LOL!!!

I now want to slap whoever coined that "think outside the Box" phrase...

[KC Elbows]

I think the definition of terrorist organizations is nebulous enough as it is. I mean, if a country actually has a group sanctioned and stationed within their borders who bombs things for them, is that a terrorist organization, or a guerilla military organization?

What makes me nervous is the number of people who have recently stated their wish that people who speak out against something the government wants should be sent to Iraq, because we're apparently traitors. As afraid as I am supposed to be of Sadam Hussein, I'm actually much more frightened by my fellow americans, and this just recently. We have a history of witch hunts, and it's been a while since a whole group was rounded up and in other ways persecuted to exorcize the demons of xenophobia. It's probably about that time again.

[dnc101]

The Patriot Act has always bothered me, as does anything which erodes our freedoms. That article is an extremist viewpoint. But we shouldn't let that detract from the core fact that the act gives broad powers to government. And that means encroachment on your freedoms. While we argue the petty stuff, this kind of thing slips by us. I really think that all of us, liberal and conservative and moderate, should take note of this act and stand together to oppose it. My congressional reps are going to hear from me.

[@PLUGO]

you know...

it would be very interesting (to me at least) to see/experience the polar ends of posters here come together to create a form letter expressing our concerns in this regard...

Can we all (or at least mostly) agree that the erosion of "Civil Liberties" freedoms or what, as being presented by the patriot act (1 & 2 or both?) should be moderated?

[dnc101]

DS, I'm with you. Might start a trend, who knows? It would be irresponsible of us to let our differences divide us on such an important point. We can agree in principle here. There will probably be some differences on specific details, but if we can get arround that and preserve the principle that our rights and freedoms are inviolate, we can argue details later. If we loose our freedoms, we loose our right to discuss the details any how.

So, what do you propose we do?

At the verry least I suggest individuals write their elected representatives. But immagine if we could get the vast majority of regular posters here to sign on to a statement of opposition to this loss of liberties. Break it down into four categories: liberal, moderate, and conservative Americans, and the international community. What do you all think?

[@PLUGO]

So, what do you propose we do?

Not sure...
I'm pretty sure most e-mail type petitions are not even looked at by the government... so of course there's an importance to the letter in an envelope (no white power please)

What I was thinking was that "we" could come up with a suitable form letter that anyone who was so inspired could cut & Paste and print...

I would tend to want to avoid the liberal, moderate, and conservative Americans, and the international community catagoires, as I tend to think catagorizing in that way works more to seperate people and diffuse the ...er, "Power of the People" effect.

Logicly I could see the need for a difference between a U.S. citizen and a member of the international community. As any Rep with view the opinion of a Voter very differently than Jo Kisonyou from the republic of wherever.

[dnc101]

I see your point about those categories being devisive. In fact, that is why I proposed it. It would illustrate both the importance of this issue to a broad political spectrum and the fact that we are not going to be divided on this issue. It would be a hook to get their attention. I doubt they really pay much attention to the average form letter from people they expect to hold those views any how ("Oh look, more wonderful letters from the NRA" "Ms. Dodge, just put them in the recycle bin with the ones from the CCBH.") But, if we could demonstrate unity with people who hold opposing views on just about everything else, it might have some impact. Perhaps a form letter that each individual could mail combined with an online form that references and summarizes those letters. Poll 'em and post 'em. Just a thought.

[dnc101]

Does any one have a link to the actual draft of the Patriot Act, I or II? It would have more impact if we could reference specific examples of infringements on our rights and freedoms, as well as a general statement that we oppose any loss of freedom.

[diego]

http://pub12.ezboard.com/fpoliticalpalacefrm1.showMessage?topicID=2123.topi c


yall want controversy....i just found this and am quirked...bush supporters peep and tell me if they lying please!. :)

[dnc101]

Dang it, diego, we don't want controversy now. We were just starting to get all touchy feely and all, then here you come!:p

Design Sifu, if you want to pursue this tac of cooperation on the issue of standing together for our freedoms, can the relevant posts be copied over and start a new thread? Might be a good ideaany way if we're going to get serious about it.

[Ford Prefect]

Hey. I wouldn't call myself a Bush supporter and I definately look past the surface when talking about international politics.

Sure, if Osama was telling the truth on a tape that just happenned to arrive after Powell's discourse, then it would definately sound bad for him. Al Queda and Sadam ideologically don't fit together, but neither does Sadaam and hezbollah and other palestinian factions. You must remember that the phrase "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" finds its roots in the Middle East. This is even shown when Osama asks all muslims to help defend the "infidel communist Iraqi's" (his words) against the US.

The rest... obviously UK will deny anything that they've covered up and obviously the Kurds don't want to be known as terrorist sympathizers. Etc etc. It's all politics, man. You can never be sure about motives for actions, so you need to look at it from all angles. Passion will always kill logic and reason, so keep a level head.

[KC Elbows]

I would be interested in helping draft a letter against this bill in its present state. I agree, splitting it into different idealogical sections is counterproductive, and would quickly become lengthy to the point where no one would read it.

[Hai_To]

Here is an interesting essay that people should read. Its a little long though.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa443.pdf

And for those of you trying to think of what you can do about this curtailment of our civil rights:

http://www.bordc.org/

[dnc101]

KC, I'm willing to yield on breaking it out into categories. It was just an idea, but you guys may be right. The main thing is to do something.

HT, I tried your links and my computer froze up. I'll try again later. Thanks.

[@PLUGO]

been er.... distracted.

Well, I can see how demonstraiting that "liberals" & "conservatives" are together on this topic I'm not sure how it would be worked out logisticly...

1st step IMO would be drafting a sort of general letter yeah?

Anyway...here's a commentary (http://www.public-i.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=502&L1=10&L2=10&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0)

that includes a link to the actual text (http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/downloads/Story_01_020703_Doc_1.pdf)

Oh, and another article (http://www.fair.org/press-releases/patriot-sequel.html)

[dnc101]

DS, if I get time tomorrow (later today!) I'll take a look at those links. Thanks. I've been off sick for three days so I have a lot of catching up to do here. But I'll make the time to look at it.

You're right, drafting a letter would be a logical first step. Let's recognize up front that there probably will be some disagreements and resolve to work them out without resorting to our usual Yang approach, everyone.

I think the letter should state the general principle that we oppose restrictions or infringements on our rights and liberties. Then we should back that up with examples. I'm not really sure what to tell them we will do about it, if anything.

Any of you out thre have political expeience? (Our little flame wars here don't count).

[KC Elbows]

Hey, if anyone has any more links to articles and such related to this, it would help quite a bit. Any letter will have more impact if we come off as educated on the topic.

I'll look for links and post any I find on here. However, let's limit them to useful links- glaringly partisan stuff on either side will only spoil the results, though some of that might be okay to see what is gonna get or lose the readers attention.

dnc,
no experience on my part, sorry.

[Hai_To]

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11817&c=206

http://www.derechos.net/paulwolf/cointelpro/

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/civil_rights/govpower_enhancement_act.html (http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/civil_rights/govpower_enhancement_act.html)

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15181

And from the author of the first Patriot Act:

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15043

[@PLUGO]

I was V.P. of Student Government durring collage... Does that count? :p

[Ford Prefect]

My favorite clause is that police, fbi, etc cab demand a DNA sample on the spot without any reason why.

[@PLUGO]

Yeah... what do you say to that?


Um, got a copy of playboy or maxim somewhere in your cruiser? Or could you atleast dance around a little bit?

[dnc101]

Originally posted by Design Sifu
I was V.P. of Student Government durring collage... Does that count? :p

Yup, it counts.

Sorry it's been a while, I was busier than I thought, and not quite as recovered as I thought either. You any goodat writing this kind of letter?

Some of Hai To's links gave some of the highlights of the bill I don't ever accept what the ACLU says as gospel, but in this case I think they are pretty much on the right track. I looked through the bill and it scares me a little. Didn't have time to read the whole thing, though.

I have no problem with the death penalty for treason or espianage. Also, foreign combatants are not accorded the rights of US citizens. But I totally disagree with declaring citizens in this category without due process. And worse, to detain them in secret while denying their rights is one of the hallmarks of any totalitarian state.

Any one who signs on to this bill should be among the first tried and executed as traitors and terrorists. Any one who doesn't speak against it deserves what they will ultimately have to live through.

[dnc101]

I've been busy for a couple of days, and this thread sliped about 5 pages back. So, I assume no one is interested in a letter together. But I do want to encourage everyone, on both sides, and you moderates too: contact your elected representatives and tell them you are opposed to ANY loss of freedoms in the name of national security. Keep it neutral, don't go pro or anti war as it detracts from your main point. Maybe pull a couple of points from the Act that bothers you- Design Sifu and Hai_To provided links (thanks, guys). Let them know that trading freedoms for security is not a bargain Americans are willing to make!

[@PLUGO]

Cool you brought this thred back up...

Seems like I (we?)'ve been letting it slipp between the more impassioned threds like...talking to the got Qi girls... :p

I'm still reading through the "act" but I honestly think dnc101 & KC elbows would probably be have the stronger language skills in presenting a unified opinion representing a broad political(?)spectrum.

[dnc101]

I hate computers!:mad:

I just wrote a sample letter, then dumped it accidentally. Sh!t !

I'll try again.


To: The Honorable____________

From: (Name, address, phone #, and e-mail address)

Re: Opposition to 'Patriot Act II', and any legislation which erodes the rights and freedoms of American citicens.

Sir,

I am opposed to the ammendment to the Patriot Act as proposed by Attorney General John Ashcroft on the grounds that it violates the rights of American citizens without due process of law.

One example is found in section 501, which allows the government to expatriate US citizens without trial, based on their alleged involvement in activities which the government deems linked to terrorism. The Fifth Ammendment to the US Constitution states that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,... ". Section 501 is clearly a violation of the Fifth Ammendment rights of American citizens.

I wish to go on record as saying that I will oppose any legislation which, in whole or in part, violates or erodes my rights, or those of any American citizen. I will not trade liberty for security. I will be watching the voting records of those I've entrusted to represent me in government.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours,
(XXX)


If you want to reference a different section, or add it to this reference, it would be good. But reference the specific right that is violated in the Constitution. Be aware that a lot of the 'rights' that are thrown around today by the media and on the net don't exist (ex: the 'right to privacy' is not in the Constitution). Be brief and specific.