General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2192535

    The Real Threat of The Patriot Act. How it undermines the Constitution!

    Locked

    by sleepin’dawg ·

    This concerns the [b]USA PATRIOT Act[/b], a U.S. law about which most of us are ignorant and is not widely understood. You need to understand it because this Act could have a major impact on you — and on your wealth. Try to learn more about The Patriot Act, it’s not very easy because it is spread out all over the place. The link below can get you started. You may find it interesting, to say the least.

    [b][u]THREE QUESTIONS[/u][/b]

    Consider these serious questions, the answers to which could determine what happens to your cash, your investments and, ultimately — to you and your family:

    1) If you are a U.S. citizen or resident of the United States, and you have an account at a bank, do you know the name of your banker?

    2) Do you know the name of even one official that works at the bank where your accounts are kept?

    3) If all the cash in your bank account suddenly was frozen, who would you call? What would you do? How would you get it unfrozen?

    Chances are, if you’re like most Americans (and like me), you don’t have answers to these questions. Even if you have a private banker whom you know well, what I am about to say still applies to you — even more so, since you probably have greater wealth involved.

    But your banker — whether you know him or not — knows everything about you and your finances — and he and his staff are watching your every move — because the U.S. government forces bankers to act as spies, reporting on you, on all of us, to the federal money police at the U.S. Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCen).

    [b][i]HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?[/i][/b]

    A national crisis, such as the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, immediately encourages a ‘do something’ reaction in politicians of every stripe. The greater the crisis, the swifter — and more unthinking — the solution politicians concoct.

    At such times, a herd mentality takes hold that overcomes logic and reason. Having served eight years in the U.S. House of Representatives, I can attest first hand to this dangerous political phenomenon. Just six weeks after the September 11th attacks, on October 26, 2001, a panicked U.S. Congress adopted the so-called ‘USA PATRIOT Act.’

    The PATRIOT Act became law with great haste and secrecy. In the name of the ‘war on terrorism,’ Congress passed this questionable legislation giving the U.S. executive branch and its police agencies sweeping new powers that undermine the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Act (all 362 pages of it) was passed with little debate by senators and congressmen, most of whom did not, and could not even read the bill, because when the final vote was taken, no printed copies were available.

    In my opinion, the Act constitutes[b] the greatest single governmental assault on personal and financial privacy in U.S. history.[/b] Already three U.S. district courts have ruled parts of the Act to be unconstitutional.

    The Act is being used for purposes that have nothing to do with fighting terrorism undefined but everything to do with unchecked police surveillance, wiretapping and secret searches of homes and offices. Fully 125 pages of this Act concern individual financial activities as well as U.S. and offshore banking and finance.

    [b][u]WHAT IS THE THREAT?[/u][/b]

    [b][u][i]The PATRIOT Act permits:[/i][/u][/b]

    * secret FBI and police searches of your home and office

    * secret government wiretaps on your phone, computer and/or Internet activity

    * secret investigations of your bank records, credit cards and other financial records

    * secret investigations of your library and book activities

    * secret examination of your medical, travel and business records.

    * the freezing of funds and assets without prior notice or appeal

    * the creation of secret ‘watch lists’ that ban those named from air and other travel

    You may think you are immune from these radical police powers – but as many innocent Americans have discovered, anyone can be caught in the government’s unthinking surveillance web — with little or no judicial review or appeal.

    In 2004, in the same week that the New York City Council voted to condemn the PATRIOT Act, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll found that while most Americans back the anti-terrorism ideas behind the Act, they are not only confused, but woefully ignorant of the provisions of the law and how it is being administered.

    What can [b]you[/b] do about this??? How can we protect ourselves??? It would be interesting to hear what others here are aware of and are thinking about. The Patriot Act was born out of a dire need to protect the USA from any further threats of terrorism but has it gone too far??? If so, what [b]should be done[/b] to correct the potential abuses of it??? Or are we going to respond only with apathy to the potential stripping away of all our freedoms and rights???

    Here are a couple of links to help people learn more of what The USA Patriot Act is and you can learn about the potential threats to your freedom, especially the risks to your personal wealth, regardless of whether you have lots or little. How would feel if all your assets were frozen by some whim of a governmental official who has mistakenly targetted you as a terrorist. There have been horror stories of people’s assets being mistakenly frozen in the past, over supposed drug dealing and money laundering, because of mistakes made through a mix up of names. The potential threat now is even worse because the scope has broadened and the agencies have been given even broader powers.

    http://www.usgov.com/index.php?show=Department+of+justice%2C+laws%2C+the+USA+patriot+act&rsr=sf&submit=Search

    http://uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/patriot.pdf

    [b]Dawg[/b]]:)

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #3133847

      how much I make and when I go pee

      by jck ·

      In reply to The Real Threat of The Patriot Act. How it undermines the Constitution!

      I don’t care if the government knows that.

      I think when it is used to harass or intimidate [b]Americans[/b] (I bold that on purpose), then there is something very wrong with the system.

      Why is that? Because in every other part of government, there is a system of checks and balances. The Patriot Act gives more discretional freedom to law enforcement to do as they wish under the guise of “patriotism” and “fighting terrorism”, and it essentially restricts how their power can be “checked” and “balanced”.

      I fear it more being used to coerce people rather than to know their financial records.

      Anyways, I don’t care if any of you know how much I make…might be embarassed cause I work in government and don’t make what I did in private sector. But, I earn a decent living without screwing people over and treating them bad.

      That’s what matters to me, cause I have a conscience.

      • #3135114

        The I don’t care if they know attitude,

        by faradhi ·

        In reply to how much I make and when I go pee

        Is what disturbs me. I care if law enforcement knows more about me than my family. My wife is the only one who knows how much I make.

        Jck, you are not alone. Apathy about the patriot act is rampant. I feel that is the most dangerous part of the whole situation. The law makers see we accepted this and will go for more. If one thing is true about the government is that they always want more.

        The other statement that drives me batty is, “If it keeps me safe, then I will give up some of my civil liberties.” IMHO, that is cowardice. I for one would rather have the gun to my head.(Yes I have had a gun to my head. Incidentally did you know that a 9mm looks like a cannon when it is three inches from your head? But I digress. :))

        Unfortunately in a free society, we must accept certain risks. Those risks include that one day some American that has no prior criminal record may go off his/her rocker and kill a lot of people with a bomb. And just because we might have been able to stop it by violating the persons civil liberties does not mean we should. I would rather my children die with freedom than live with tyranny.

        • #3135048

          I agree. We have to be vigilant.

          by stress junkie ·

          In reply to The I don’t care if they know attitude,

          I wrote a very similar position essay in another recent TR discussion so I won’t go into depth here. It’s clear that we have to be on guard against people who would undermine our Constitution for some real or imaginary benefit. I believe Ben Franklin said that anyone who would give up some liberty to gain some security deserves neither.

          A lot of people have died or otherwise suffered in order to protect our form of government. When we willingly allow the government to undermine the Constitution we make a mockery of the sacrifices made to preserve it.

        • #3106913

          whether its legal or constitutional

          by jck ·

          In reply to I agree. We have to be vigilant.

          I’m not sure either way…I’m not an attorney.

          I just don’t mind them *collecting* the info, as that can serve to determine what things might be happening that are not “normal”.

          It’s when that information is dispersed or used in a manner not in accordance of its purpose to discern possible threats…then I have an issue.

          Personally if they want to know how much I make, I bet they have a process to get it from the IRS. That’s why it doesn’t bother me.

          I believe in right to privacy, protection against illegal search and seizure, etc. I just don’t have a bit of care of what people know about me…other than my phone number, home address, etc. And, I expect anyone I give that info to should keep it in confidence.

          If the government was to go publishing my personal contact information in a public forum, then I’d take it to heart.

          Anyways…not telling anyone how to feel about it…I am just not that worried if someone knows I make a mid 5-figure salary, that I’m almost 6’6, that I hate my line of work, or that I’m currently in the process of working on my house to sell it.

          Cheers…

    • #3135007

      The real threat of the Patriot Act is. . . . .

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to The Real Threat of The Patriot Act. How it undermines the Constitution!

      ….. from people who either don’t understand it, or from people who misrepresent what it is, what it does, what it’s intended to do, what it has done, and what it will do.

      Ignorance works both ways, you know. And I have yet to see one legitimate claim from an American who has been harmed, spied on, or otherwise injured in any way whatsoever.

      “Undermines the constitution”? Please, spare me the dramatics. I expect more from you, dawg. You’re sleepin’ on this one.

      • #3134969

        Perhaps I am but the potential for abuse exists. There should be safeguards

        by sleepin’dawg ·

        In reply to The real threat of the Patriot Act is. . . . .

        You do realize there is a provision for in camera court proceedings??? Even the findings of guilty or innocent are classified. The fact your assets can be frozen in an instant, in error and the proceedings to get them back can take years, bothers me. That happened to a few people who were mistakenly targetted by the DEA and though acquitted and the mistake admitted and an apology given, it still took over six months to reclaim their property. So far it hasn’t happened under the Patriot Act as far as anyone knows but I bet it is only a matter of time. As long as I’m not mistakenly targetted, I really don’t care but the fact that I might be, is cause for concern. I don’t want the act scrapped, far from it, I want it improved so nobody innocent gets mistakenly caught up in it. Anyway I’m glad my name doesn’t sound foreign.

        BTW were you able to answer the three questions to your satifaction???

        [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

      • #3134902

        So what you are saying is…

        by faradhi ·

        In reply to The real threat of the Patriot Act is. . . . .

        that we have to wait for an abuse to happen before we can say the act has the potential for abuse?

        How about we change the way we work as a society for once be proactive. We see the potential for abuse. Let’s modify the system just a little to mitigate the potential. I know, I know. That is just crazy talk. Being how I am ‘merican and should just tow the line on anything that supposedly protects ‘mericans.

        • #3134886

          I hate it when. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to So what you are saying is…

          ….people start a rebuttal by suggesting, “so what you are saying is….”. It means that people presume to put words in my mouth, stretch my comments to suggest something absurd, and so on.

          What I am saying, to answer your question, is exactly what I said. No more, no less. If you would like to explore some “therefore what” conclusions, I’d be happy to do just that.

          But all too often, especially around here, I’ve been faced with a reply that started by someone suggesting, “so what you are saying is…, and then they state something that I did not say or imply, and they argue against that. My reply might be to naturally argue back to defend something that I did not say in the first place.

          So please rephrase your comments. Ask specific questions asking for clarification. But please don’t rephrase or stretch what I said.

          I will say this, however. Every law we have in America has the potential for abuse. So what you are saying is that we should not have any laws because they all have the potential for abuse? (Sarcasm intended to further make my point.)

        • #3134881

          Ok fine.

          by faradhi ·

          In reply to I hate it when. . . . .

          Here is what you said. “I have yet to see one legitimate claim from an American who has been harmed, spied on, or otherwise injured in any way whatsoever.”

          So what are you trying to say about the patriot act with that statement.

          I understand it to mean that you do believe that the patriot act is fine as is because those with oppose the patriot act cannot find one instance where the government has abused it.

          If I am mistaken I am sorry please clarify.

        • #3097034

          Let me use an analogy and set the premise.

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Ok fine.

          I believe, as I said in a different message, that the primary function of the American government is to protect its citizens from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. And I further believe that we have to allow some latitude to our government to do just that. How can we possibly expect the government to protect its citizens from “domestic enemies” if we deny them the capability to look for them?

          Just as we have to suffer through the inconvenience of the occasional DUI checkpoint, we might have to also allow “domestic enemy” checkpoints to facilitate those efforts. And so far, I’ve never seen a sober citizen arrested at a DUI checkpoint, just like I’ve never seen a harmless citizen arrested at a “domestic enemy” checkpoint.

          If we want to keep drunk drivers off our streets, we have to put up with the efforts to facilitate that desired end result. And if we want to keep domestic enemies off our streets, likewise, we have to put up with the efforts to facilitate that desired end result. If either one of those efforts proves to having been abused and/or the government authorities prove to overstep their bounds, then the system is such that we can reign it back in. It may not be perfect, and not everyone will like it, but that’s the way our system works; and on balance, it works pretty well.

          See my other message about my doubts as to the intentions of those who were the driving force behind the opposition to begin with, combine it with what I said in this message, and perhaps you’ll understand my position a little better.

          I will say this, however. The mere fact that a lot of people oppose such a program is the very thing that prevents it from being abused. That’s why I will never rest until we no longer have to suffer through the indignity of those intrusive DUI checkpoints. I don’t care how many drunk drivers are out there; I don’t want my rights and privacy infringed upon.

        • #3097027

          I agree that we have to create …

          by faradhi ·

          In reply to Let me use an analogy and set the premise.

          a mechanism for the government to protect against domestic enemies. However, how far should this go? Please read my previous post about risks and personal liberties and you should understand where I come from. especially the last paragraph. http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=189081&messageID=1942303

          I have seen someone arrested for DUI that was not drunk. I was with a friend when he spilled a soda on his lap. It made him jerk and he swerved. The officer was convinced that he was drunk. My friend passed the touching nose thing, the walking the straight line, and the standing on one leg. Frustrated, the officer shines a light on the pavement and tells him to step on the light. Well, of course when my friend’s foot hit the pavement, the light was not where it was. The only thing that saved my friends butt was I was there to witness.

          I do not agree that just because you don’t like the messenger, you should disregard the message. I don’t like the Pres. However, I agreed with the part of the state of the union where he proposed funding for alternative fuels research. His motives for this proposal are suspect, but I support his proposal.

        • #3097022

          So what you are saying is. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I agree that we have to create …

          …that we should do away with all DUI laws?

          Why did you AGAIN stretch and/or put words in my mouth? I never said that I “don’t like the messenger”.

          I won’t even comment on what you said that I said, which I didn’t say. You obviously didn’t take much effort to “understand”.

        • #3097018

          That is just what I understood you to say.

          by faradhi ·

          In reply to I agree that we have to create …

          I am trying to understand. Ok, you did not that exact phrase. I did rephrase it as I understood. If you like Kerry I am sorry.

          Further, there are many times when someone can be wrong in one instance and right in another. I am sure if you look hard enough there is inconsistencies with everyone.

          I am not saying repel the Patriot Act all together. I say repeal parts of it. I am not an all or nothing thinker. There are parts of the Act I agree with.

        • #3096969

          Like or Not Like has nothing to do with it

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I agree that we have to create …

          For the record, I don’t like John Kerry either. Moreover, I don’t trust him. He has absolutely no credibility in my eyes. Don’t look at what he says, but rather what he does.

          But it’s not just John Kerry, either. The entire Democrat Party is, in lock-step, on their soapbox denouncing the act, either in full or in part. However they all voted in favor of passing it (except Russ Feingold). It initially passed the Senate by a whopping 98-1-1 vote!

          Moreover, the provisions in the act are systematically brought up for review and renewal; none of it is permanent and/or set in stone.

          The political opposition to the Patriot Act, is, in my opinion, simply demagoguing on the issue. If they really were THAT opposed to it, they would have voted no in the first place, and would never vote in favor of its renewal.

          They’re demagogues, and I hate demagogues. And they’re stirring up public opposition, not because they sincerely believe what they say, but rather to advance their own personal political agenda. And that’s what I mean when I suggest we consider the source.

          In my opinion, they are getting you, dawg, and other like you to eat right out of their hands. They are getting you to advance their own political agenda, not safeguard your own liberty.

          As a final comment: I’ll never convince you to change your opinion, and you’ll never convince me to change mine. But it has been an interesting dialogue.

        • #3096930

          One final post,

          by faradhi ·

          In reply to I agree that we have to create …

          I do not disagree with you about the democrats or republicans for that matter. My original arguments were not for or against any political party. IMHO they are all bastages.

          My position has always that there are very serious problems with the patriot act. Our government has already proven that they will abuse a power that is given to them. Therefore, the two very serious problems I discussed in a previous post need to be corrected. I don’t care who does it.

      • #3134878

        My opposition to the Patriot Act….

        by faradhi ·

        In reply to The real threat of the Patriot Act is. . . . .

        Is not in what it’s intend to do, what it has done, or what it is.

        My opposition is based on two things. 1st, the Patriot Act does allow the survelance of citizens by the FBI and other agencys without a court order. 2nd, it has an immediate gag order clause. This means that if I were arrested under the patriot act then I could not discuss it.

        Well, Kinda makes it hard for anyone to see “one legitimate claim from an American who has been harmed, spied on, or otherwise injured in any way whatsoever”. Doesn’t it?

        • #3097029

          My answer

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to My opposition to the Patriot Act….

          .
          It’s all in this message:

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=189081&messageID=1942716

          Also, as a side-note, just as we have to “trust” the authorities to use wisdom and due diligence in their law enforcement and/or national defense efforts, we also have to “trust” our representatives to write the laws in such a way to protect us from abuse. We can always change the laws and change our representatives if they prove to have gone too far. And the very nature of the Patriot Act facilitates review and renewal of Congress.

          Moreover, the Patriot Act could not have been made law without Congress. Look at how they all voted on the thing, and you might be surprised. (This is where the dissenters enter into their conspiracy mode.)

        • #3097025

          I am not a conspiracy theorist

          by faradhi ·

          In reply to My answer

          but how can we “trust our representatives to write the laws in such a way to protect us from abuse.” when they didn’t even read the damn thing they voted on. What part of that is Wise and diligent.

        • #3092832

          I do not fear the Patriot Act

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to My answer

          ..as long as George W. Bush is president. However, if Hillary Clinton or another liberal democrat becomes the next president, then I will have reason to fear it. The Democrats might abuse it to crack down on legitimate political groups that oppose them if they came to power, much like the way the anti-racketeering laws were abused under Bill Clinton to stop pro-life groups. That is the danger of certain laws. They may be fine when people you trust are in power, but there is the danger that someone will come to power after them who will abuse it.

    • #3134888

      dawg’ – Some thoughts

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to The Real Threat of The Patriot Act. How it undermines the Constitution!

      It appears to me that opposition to the Patriot Act is driven, primarily, from the political left in America. (The extremist right-wing is also on board, I will concede; but when did the Pat Buchanan bunch become credible to the mainstream and/or to the left?)

      My big issue with the opposition to the Patriot Act is a credibility and consistency one. I cringe when I hear the likes of John Kerry and company complain about the Patriot Act because it infringes on individual liberties; yet, this is the SAME BUNCH who advances one social program after another that, by definition, by design, and by and intent, infringes on the individual liberties of Americans. Sorry, that bird just won’t fly with me. And as such, you’ll never convince me that the primary motivation behind those who brought the issue to the forefront to begin with was to damage the Bush administration and/or to advance their own political power and agenda, not to protect the liberty or privacy of every-day Americans. Look at what they DO, not at what they SAY, and their real motivation is made clear. And if their argument is built on a false premise, how can you possibly lend any credence to their argument? The answer is, you can’t.

      And for the record, as you may already know. I’m not in lock-step agreement with what the political right and/or the Bush administration is doing. I could name any number of things that I’m adamantly opposed to. But it seems to me that many people (around here) can’t say the same thing. Look at all the loony-lefties around here (and in the news, etc.), and ask, where’s the consistency in principle? Where’s the opposition from within? They are ALL in lock-step agreement with almost everything they try to advance.

      I believe the primary and most important function of the American government is to protect its citizens from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. (Sarcasm Alert: I read that somewhere.) I further believe that both the intent and the function of the Patriot Act is to do just that, not spy on this conversation you and I are having over the Internet or via a phone call. And to stretch their intent to do those things is absurd.

    • #3134880

      To answer your three questions

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to The Real Threat of The Patriot Act. How it undermines the Constitution!

      1) If you are a U.S. citizen or resident of the United States, and you have an account at a bank, do you know the name of your banker?

      The natural answer in no, I do not “know the name of my banker”. But the question implies that I have only one banker, and the structure of banking in America doesn’t really facilitate the “one banker” system.

      2) Do you know the name of even one official that works at the bank where your accounts are kept?

      Yes, I actually do. And I make a point to call them by name when I go up to the window or sit at a desk. They all wear name tags. And they’re all very nice and accommodating to me.

      3) If all the cash in your bank account suddenly was frozen, who would you call? What would you do? How would you get it unfrozen?

      What would I do? I would start to find out why.

      How would I get it unfrozen? It depends on why they were frozen in the first place, and by whom.

      Who would I call? First I would call the president of the bank, or some upper management bank employee. I might then call my lawyer. The IRS could freeze my account. My ex-wife’s lawyer could freeze my account. A lot of things could happen to freeze my account.

      So your “who” and “what” questions would all depend on the “why”.

    • #3096941

      Hey dawg – Who wrote that piece, and. . . . .

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to The Real Threat of The Patriot Act. How it undermines the Constitution!

      …where did it come from?

      • #3092888

        I deleted that particular piece but…………..

        by sleepin’dawg ·

        In reply to Hey dawg – Who wrote that piece, and. . . . .

        http://www.sovereignsociety.com/

        is the link to the news letter.

        E-mail:

        info@sovereignsociety.com/

        It contains investing suggestions about stocks, bonds, etc, as information regarding asset protection and offshore investing.

        I precised the letter and made what I thought might be some helpful suggestions. The point you made about your ex-wifes lawyer is just one of a few reasons I like to keep myself law-suit proof. Nobody can seize or freeze what they can’t find.
        Considering the US has, aside from a few recent lapses, the best set of markets available to the investor; US banking services and security are however, extremely vulnerable and in the event you are targetted, regardless of the reason(s) but lets say mistakenly, it could take time to clear yourself and regain control of your assets, time that may not be convenient, as well as potential damage to your credit rating. Yes I could invest on the TSE, FTSE, NIKKEI, Hang Seng, et al but the NYSE and the various commodity venues of the US are probably the best available. Yes I do invest on some of the other markets but there are times when it is better to deal in ADRs on The NYSE.

        Another source you might want to look at is The Motley Fool. Here’s the link:

        http://www.fool.com/

        They provide a lot of information for free but they also provide sevices to which you must subscribe.

        Another one you might want to look at:

        http://www.wealthdaily.net

        [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

    • #3133106

      Checks and balances

      by av . ·

      In reply to The Real Threat of The Patriot Act. How it undermines the Constitution!

      I don’t like the “secret” part in the USA Patriot Act because there is too much room for abuse. Thats too much power. Knowing how corrupt and inept our government is, I don’t trust them to handle it the right way. Sure, you can say that you never heard of anyone having problems, but why would you ever hear a thing? Its all secret. You don’t know what they’re doing or what has happened because of it.

      I don’t like knowing that I could one day become a person of interest and be whisked off to a secret CIA location never to be heard from for 2 years because someone spelled my name wrong on a no-fly list. I wouldn’t like it either if I came home one day to find my house wrecked or empty because they thought I was a terrorist and it turned out I wasn’t a year later.

      This isn’t what America is all about and we can’t let it become that. We need to restore checks and balances for the Executive branch of government immediately! Its too bad that most people don’t even realize that this could happen to them. For example, what if you knew a person of interest? Guilt through association in the government’s eyes?

      I would say America will probably respond with apathy. Some of us may write letters to our public officials, but I don’t see an all out revolt. People are too afraid of terrorists to complain. What we all should be afraid of is our government. If they’re so concerned about terrorists, why don’t they do something about enforcing our southern border with Mexico and immigration policies?

      • #3133065

        The Constitution was meant for us to live under, not be paralyzed by

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Checks and balances

        Thomas Sowell points out that The Constitution was meant for us to live under, not be paralyzed by, as he said in an excellent opinion piece on this issue, well worth reading.

        http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2006/02/07/185446.html

        In time of war, some latitude and flexibility must be given to the commander-in-chief charged with waging that war. All presidents have used the powers inherent with their office and the responsibility they face. None have abused it, and neither is the current one.

        This nonsense attacking the president for this is a political ploy, no more, no less. And if people were totally honest about it, they’d admit as much. Moreover, it aids the enemies of our country, and does absolutely nothing detrimental to our citizens.

        I’m disgusted with people who put our national security at risk just to advance their own political agenda. And that’s exactly what they’re doing.

        • #3253935

          This is a bipartisan issue

          by av . ·

          In reply to The Constitution was meant for us to live under, not be paralyzed by

          I can understand flexibility of the rules during war time, but I still want the President to comply with FISA. It was created to prevent abuse. The President has 72 hours after the fact to apply for a warrant. To bypass that is against our current law. GWB could have discussed whatever problems he had with FISA with Congress and they would have amended the law, but instead he just did what he wanted.

          Warrantless wiretapping has a record of abuse over the years.

          http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5061834 (I can’t seem to get this to be a link, sorry)

          Thats why FISA was created. Your article is about not questioning anything the President does because of fear of terrorism – if we don’t allow our President to do what he wants to keep us safe, the terrorists will attack us, they will laugh at us. I for one do not want to allow secret anything unless there is oversight by the courts.

          I don’t trust this president or any other president to have that kind of power. Maybe you do, and honestly, I’m surprised at that. One day, you too could be a person of interest.

          I also don’t see how our President can talk about national security when our borders are not secure, our country is full of illegal aliens and they are not doing anything to change that.

          The war on terror is a long term threat that we will have to live with, but there needs to be a system of checks and balances to prevent abuses. We shouldn’t be so quick to allow our freedoms to be compromised in the name of terrorism.

        • #3253906

          Your understanding of FISA is incorrect.

          by faradhi ·

          In reply to This is a bipartisan issue

          According to General Hayden of the NSA, Under FISA the [b] Attorney General’s Office [/b] must approve the search. The AG’s office must then contact the FISA court. There is no mechanism for the President to issue a warrant under FISA. This was on Fox News Sunday last week.

          This is a problem. The president needs the ability to issue warrants in time Situations where the AG cannot be contacted. I agrees there should be a FISA like court oversight within a reasonable period of time.

        • #3091051

          I didn’t mean it like that

          by av . ·

          In reply to Your understanding of FISA is incorrect.

          I worded it improperly. The President must go to the Attorney General and then the Attorney General will seek the warrant through FISA, as you say. He has 72 hours to do it after the fact.

          If accessibility is a problem, than that should be addressed, but the law shouldn’t be ignored because its too much trouble.

        • #3077927

          The law should be amended..

          by faradhi ·

          In reply to I didn’t mean it like that

          to include the president for authorizations.

          I agree that the president should not have ignored the law. He should have approached congress and gotten FISA amended.

    • #3093710

      Max you said you had never heard of anybody……………….

      by sleepin’dawg ·

      In reply to The Real Threat of The Patriot Act. How it undermines the Constitution!

      being targeted by the Patriot Act? Here’s an example; there are more out there and I’ll list them as soon as I can find them. BTW the AARP ran a bunch of horor stories some time ago, of some of their members running afoul of the patriot act. I can’t say I read the stories but I put it down to the fact that a lot of the elderly are computer illiterate and/or are living in a mild state of confusion. Regardless their assets end up frozen and there is lots of problems in getting them restored. The American Junior Chamber of Commercehas also run some stories of members having problems with the Patriot Act. You don’t hear much about these stories because in several cases there were court ordered publication bans, not so much to protect the privacy of individuals as to hide the embarassment of government having to admit errors.

      http://www.tampatrib.com/MGBTP976FJE.html

      [b]Dawg[/b]

      • #3093687

        But Dawg…

        by faradhi ·

        In reply to Max you said you had never heard of anybody……………….

        We have to protect citizens from those Nuns. I mean they wield dangerous rulers. THere is not a set of knuckles in the country that are safe as long as those Nuns are on the loose.

      • #3092220

        This is meaningless

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Max you said you had never heard of anybody……………….

        To suggest that a bureaucracy — any bureaucracy — won’t have the occasional snafu is to expect the impossible. And these types of stories aren’t sufficient enough to change my mind. If they were, we’d have to do away with absolutely every government agency in existence. At least the nuns got their money back, their fees paid, and a big old apology.

        Besides, they deserved it for all those whacks they inflicted on my knuckles with their weapons of mass extensions – yardsticks!

        Compare that to the IRS and DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency), and their rules and tactics. There was a guy flying one way from Denver to Las Vegas (or vice versa) quite a few years ago, when, for some reason, he was pulled aside at the Denver airport and questioned by the DEA for suspicion of being involved in some drug crime. He was a burly looking fellow, your stereotypical Harley Davidson, Hells Angel kinda’ guy. He had virtually no luggage and ten thousand dollars cash in his pockets. He had no drugs, and explained that the cash was from the sale of a motorcycle. He rode it one-way, sold it to a buyer, and was on his way back home.

        The DEA seized the cash because it was “suspected” drug money, and he NEVER GOT IT BACK! I will admit that there’s probably more to this story than meets the eye, and I may not recall the circumstances exactly, but it’s a known and documentable fact that the DEA and IRS can seize cars, homes, cash, and whatever else they deem appropriate if they “claim” it was acquired from drug money — even if they can’t prove it. And they’ve been openly doing it for years!

        So for people to scream bloody murder over the Patriot Act, but give a pass to the DEA, the IRS, and other such intrusive agencies — the ones that are REALLY INTRUSIVE – is just a crock.

        There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to suggest that the Patriot Act is not used for — and ONLY for — the war against terrorism. Without it, we are weaker against those who wish to inflict massive damage to the United States. And as Thomas Sowell recently pointed out in an opinion piece, our constitution was intended for us to live under, not be paralyzed by. And on balance, when it comes to the Patriot Act, the scales of justice fall heavily on the side of protecting the rights of Americans, not denying them.

        Damn, dawg’. I thought you were smarter than this. If you can’t see all this hub-bub over the Patriot Act as ONLY a ploy by the Democrats to damage President Bush, then you’ve been flying too high and too long in those open cockpit airplanes. Come back down to earth and get some air. It might clear your head.

        • #3092142

          Max, when it comes to me and my money, when you mention………………..

          by sleepin’dawg ·

          In reply to This is meaningless

          [b][i]anything at all to do with government[/i][/b] I get a bit paranoid. When you are talking about all the nonsense that the pinko, liberal/socialist, Democrasses are blabbing, about civil rights etc, I am in [b]total[/b] agreement with you. But you seem to miss my point. I am talking about money here more specifically perhaps, [b]MY MONEY[/b]. You don’t hear much information regarding individuals, it’s only when it involves a group but the information I’ve been seeing lately is coming from conservatives concerned about the threat being posed to their financial well being.

          None of these people give a damn about supposed civil rights abuses under the act and neither do I. What I am concerned about is the potential threat of having my finances seized by an error or mistaken identity and I only ask for the safeguard of being able to quickly rectify the situation.

          Maybe you could stand for [b]your[/b] finances being screwed up for a few months. I would have problems within days if not hours. What happens to me if and when I can’t trade my portfolio??? I wouldn’t mind the threat so much if there were a sytem in place to quickly clear myself and regain control of my accounts but there isn’t and as of this moment the process could take months if not years.

          It has happened that way with the DEA and IRS and as of now, it is the same, almost, under the Patriot Act, except everything is in camera. I don’t care about all that other stuff about easedropping or civil rights abuses, I agree, thats just a load of Democrat rhetoric, but when I hear conservative organizations being concerned about threats to personal finances, then my pucker factor rises accordingly.

          How would you handle your finances being locked down??? How are you going to live if you can’t cash your paycheck as well as pay your bills??? Maybe you [b]should[/b] come and take a flip with me; it might blow the cobwebs away. The CIA, FBI, NSA are more than welcome to look me over if it is part of making me more safe and secure, just stay the hell away from my finances. Hell I would even put up with an [b]IRS and Revenue Canada[/b] audit and if you’ve ever been on the receiving end of either of those, you know what a pain in the ass they can be but freeze all my finances without warning; no, that I definitely couldn’t put up with and if you think you could, I think you would find out you are sadly mistaken.

          BTW you should notice I do not reccommend removing this power; I would just like to see an apparatus in place by which one could clear oneself quickly and have control of their finances returned to them asap. It should all be able to happen in 48 hours, weekends included, not the current process which can take months and years. This way the innocent would be able to carry on more or less normally; the guilty would still end up, hopefully, where they belong.

          [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

        • #3092038

          How would I handle my finances being locked down?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Max, when it comes to me and my money, when you mention………………..

          .
          I’d be hosed.

          Take a flip with you? Do you mean …. up there?

          You betcha! Come on by, dawg’. I’ll flip with you anytime.

          Let’s just agree on most counts and agree to disagree on the other. I wouldn’t want to get you pissed. You just might flip me right outta’ there!

        • #3092027

          Well you know what they call Canadians don’t you???

          by sleepin’dawg ·

          In reply to How would I handle my finances being locked down?

          You guys call us a bunch of hosers; dont you???:^O

          [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

        • #3091117

          Max, taking you up for a flip would be fun but………………………..

          by sleepin’dawg ·

          In reply to How would I handle my finances being locked down?

          would you mind waiting a while; till maybe May or June. You’ll find, even on a warm day, it gets colder the higher you go. If I remember correctly your in Colorado, which is in the region of a mile high, even before the kite leaves the ground. You also mentioned interest in open cockpit flying, which at the present time isn’t on, if you intend retaining certain parts of your anatomy that identify you as belonging to the maculine gender.

          I’ve never flown any type of open cockpit plane for much more than an hour and a half and aside from the fact I don’t own one other than the virtual one you bestowed on me at Christmas, they are fairly slow so I’m more inclined to arrive via something speedier and enclosed and try to borrow an open cockpit kite from some people, I know, in or around Boulder. It would have to be something I’m typed on but that shouldn’t be too difficult to find. The other option would be to go up in what I’ll be flying, when I arrive in your area and that way I could not only take you up but your sons as well. BTW I’ve lost your e-mail address and really don’t want to pm you from here. I’ll explain why later. You could send me your generic address from there.

          BTW I have no idea where you are in relation to Boulder and Denver but I’m in and out of Boulder 6 or 7 times a year on business and I’m usually there for a minimum of 5 days at a time.

          The open cockpit almost begs to be stunted but I’ve only done aerobatics from fields less than 1000′ ASL so if you opt for the open cockpit don’t expect anything too wild from me as I might need some time to get used to the thinner air at your altitude which is another good reason to go with the enclosed plane; they’re limited in their stunting capability but at least I know that if I can take you up, I can also bring you back down safely, well at least most of the time.:D

          [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

    • #3090980

      A person of interest

      by av . ·

      In reply to The Real Threat of The Patriot Act. How it undermines the Constitution!

      This could happen to anyone. Sure, everyone was afraid of Anthrax, but Dr. Hatfill has never been proven guilty. In the process, they ruined his life.

      http://www.answers.com/dr.%20steven%20hatfill

    • #3037207

      Some truth and facts that are PROVEN!!!!

      by rickychicago ·

      In reply to The Real Threat of The Patriot Act. How it undermines the Constitution!

      Okay, this post is to inform those who read this forum of what actual HAS and IS going on. I won’t go on about theories, just facts and personal experience. Feel free to check my sources. I only ask that when you read this, read it with an unbiased, truly open mind. Wait to form opinions on what I say after you have checked the validity of what I’m saying and apply it to your life with your opinions. This is written to the reader and not a response to a specific post. I will make reference to them, however it’s written to you for you from one conscience being to another. The Patriot Act affects someone you know if your social network is based in America. I absolutely 100% can say that is true and here is how.

      1. Everyone knows someone who is in the U.S. military. I was at one point also. Did you know that they keep motion detectors in military barracks? I don’t mean they have one in a couple places either. In every bedroom there is a motion sensor that will go off with slight movement in light or dark. In every room, every hallway, staircases; no part of that barracks was unmonitored. I never got an answer as to why they had them so I will leave that up to you to decide. Did you also know a sergeant that has been stationed there for three years and spent a good majority of that time in a room with two of these sensors and he thought i was crazy and laughed at me? When I challenged the laughter in the room and proved what I said there was dead silence in the room. 10 or so people had no idea what those red lights were going off over their heads all day were and still don’t know why. Unfortunately, I do not have visual evidence of this, so you’re going to have to take my word that I’m not going to waste an hour of my time typing all of this simply to “advance their own personal political agenda” as Maxwell Edison (frequent poster on this forum) says the opposition to this act are doing. I am not saying every base is like that, I was only at one base other than combat and basic training. So to the readers that are on a base right now, if yours is not like that, don’t discredit what I’m saying; prove me wrong. the Marine barracks on Keesler AFB in Biloxi, MS has them, and no one who I showed the sensor to thought I was crazy after it.

      2. Do you know what freedom is? Take a second to think of the freedoms you enjoy on a daily basis; freedom of religion, speech, unbiased free media. Now come up with YOUR own definition of the word freedom. Here is Merriam Webster’s definition:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom. See some common words you’ve heard before? Any synonyms you recognize? Now let’s apply this to everyday American life.

      A. Speech: Freedom of speech applied with the definition means that you are allowed to say whatever you want without legal action taken against you. If I say I’m going to kill someone or attack a nation that’s one thing. What if I disagree with the War in Iraq? Under the Patriot Act, I would be considered a terrorist. Sound familiar? It should. The “red scares” where the American govt. arrested American citizens with no other motive than they were suspected of being a communist. Last time I checked, that’s the opposite of free speech. What that says is, “You are free to express your opinions as long as they are held by me (me in this case being the U.S. govt.).” If I’m a communist, shouldn’t I also be allowed to voice my opinions? What about the Revolutionary War? Salem witch trials. All these have documented examples of people being persecuted for having beliefs that were of the minority. What’s wrong with having that opinion? Isn’t that a staple of American life? That was a reason for the American Revolution was it not? The right to represent ourselves? Now let’s go back to modern time. Even the young children you see are subjected to it. When I was in school, I was forced under school policy to stand up, place my right hand on my heart, stop what I was doing and say the “Pledge of Allegiance.” Where is the free speech in that. Even at a young age we are punished for having opinions contrary to govt. What if I don’t want to pledge my allegiance to America? Is that not my right to free speech? Where is the difference in the three historically documented and accurate examples to what is in place today?

      B. Press: Three words… the Bush family. Read the article linked here, but read it with unbiased eyes. Don’t get caught up in who you like and dislike, who is better than the other, or what political views you have; just look at the facts. The point I’m making has nothing to do with democrats or republicans, just freedom of press. Focus on the control the govt. implemented on the media. http://www.mediastudy.com/articles/jellis.html Once again we see proven examples of how freedom in America is much different than freedom. So what you are actually getting is not the facts when you watch the news, more accurately you get what Maxwell Edison was talking about except he was wrong about who is doing it. The media is a tool the govt. uses to project the images they want people to see, not what is actually going on. Shocking isn’t it. Pause a second that’s a lot to take in. The truth is right there. It rocks your world i know, but it’s the truth. All of the facts regarding the ties to govt. and media were presented right there in front of you were they not? Then why is it so hard to believe, crazy even? Because look at who has been spoon feeding you nonsense for years. Like me you probably didn’t know any better. The Bush family is one of many as you have seen if you read the article, and I use them because everyone knows their name, and because they are so deeply rooted in American politics. Again, I am not a democrat or republican defender, I’m just giving facts and asking you questions.

      C. Religion: Do you have the ability to practice any religion you please? Can you be a Jew, Pagan, Christian, Satanist, etc. legally? Stop and think about it. What do YOU think. Truth is the only religions that are legal in the U.S. are ones that support the U.S. govt. agenda. The Patriot Act backs that up 100%. The very beliefs of some religions challenge the American political system and way of life. The religion most identified with in politics is Christianity. “God Bless America,” “In God we Trust,” “One nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” What if I don’t believe in the Christian god? If I insert my belief in the above phrases, it’s seen as anti-American and political blasphemy. If people want to institute religion in public tax paid education that’s fine isn’t it? Isn’t that giving people the freedom of religion in schools? Well actually it’s not and here is why. To have that freedom of expression be okay, you also have to allow other views to be present. Why is it that Pagan views are seen as “evil” and “demonic” and “devil worshiping” “Satanic?” Pagans don’t believe in Satan so how is that possible? Just because I believe something does not mean you have to, and being punished for saying such is once again the opposite of freedom when the linked and unbiased definition of freedom is applied. That’s called having an opinion and being allowed to voice it.

      D. All of these “freedoms” are punishable by law under section 802 subsection 2 of the U.S. Patriot Act. I will provide the link to the Patriot Act PDF I’m referencing, but here is the section: Section 802 simply modifies this last element to include acts that appear to
      be intended to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination
      or kidnaping.
      It defines domestic terrorism as those criminal acts dangerous to human life,
      committed primarily within the United States, that appear to be intended to intimidate
      or coerce a civilian population, or to influence a governmental policy by intimidation
      or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction,
      assassination or kidnaping, 18 U.S.C. 2331(5). Okay, see anything odd about that? Isn’t that what the American govt. does everyday all day? By applying the combined definitions of domestic and coerce you see the recurring theme of American govt. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coerce http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/domestic You read examples of them doing exactly what they are punishing people for. By forcing beliefs via the media, the education system and the U.S. Constitution, they are guilty of all charges and the evidence needed to prosecute you’ve read. They have made it illegal to disagree with them. But we are free? Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? All men are created equal? Makes you wonder how free we really are.

      3. Now that we’ve established that the American govt. is up to more than they tell you, let’s look at the origins of the word government. The word government originated from the Latin language and when literally translated from Latin roots says “control mind” or control of the mind. Now there starts to really be a huge issue. Not only is the govt. taking our freedoms mentioned above, but they are literally, as you just read, are implementing control over your thoughts. Take a breath again and let it sink in. What about that statement is false? Don’t play defense for the govt. and say I’m crazy for suggesting they are doing it. We already established they were giving you lies and half truths to fit there needs didn’t we? To get you to think and act for them? Look at the examples as what they are. Proven facts. Unlike “modern science” where most of what they go off of is assuming a THEORY is true, look at facts. The last time a govt. was exposed for doing this at the scale the American govt. has was the Nazi party. They elected Hitler. He told them he was only wanting four years in office then to step down. Literally. But with the control of media and giving the people something to take nationalistic pride in, well the rest is history. Don’t look at the differences in what Hitler ended up being, look at the similarities of the freedoms he took all the way from speech, religion, thought even. Now compare the U.S. govt. to that. No difference in principal. Just different in what they do with the control they have.

      Take from this post what you will. It’s up to you. Your choices, opinions and thoughts matter. Not the regurgitation of what people say, but your personal thoughts. As promised here is the link for the Patriot Act PDF I used as a reference http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/RL31200.pdf Read and find out why I am a “terrorist” because I gave a side other than the one they give you. Also question what I say. Not doubt what I say, question it, validate it, prove it right or wrong with facts that have been proven to you, not what you heard on TV or at Wal-Mart in the checkout line. With this attitude you will find there is much more to the life you live. These are only a small group of examples based around freedoms we as American residents believe we have when we really don’t in conjunction with the Patriot Act.

Viewing 8 reply threads