It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Has the Patriot Act affected you?

page: 2
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Is it such a far stretch of the imagination to believe that most people in the Bush administration, FBI, CIA, NSA and black projects genuinely want to keep you safe?


Yes, actually. I’ve stated a very simple fact to comprehend more than once in this thread: people have tried to correct the act, to amend its issues. The proposed modified versions that have been presented would not so grossly infringe on our rights. So far mainly the organizations and administration you listed do not want this to happen, they don’t want concession, and they expect us to let them keep this massive amount of power and trust that they can handle it without any corruption or devastating blunders; which they have yet to survive without when it comes to almost every other issue involving these groups. I want safety, but I’m not willing to let the government gut the Bill of Rights to get it. The risk isn’t worth the reward.




posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by verylowfrequency

Anyone & everyone who supports the Patriot act is an enemy of the American people as far as I'm concerned.



You just labeled Obama an enemy of the American people as he voted in favor of the 2nd Patriot Act, sir. But I'm sure that wasn't your intention now, was it? After all, the majority of this board knows Obama can do no wrong.



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by johnsky
 

So according to your line of thinking, which I do understand, what's the solution, assuming there is no middle ground on this issue?

You cannot protect your nation without sacrificing the rights of your citizens and risking a dictator coming to power.

You cannot do nothing, otherwise you are subject to constant terrorist attacks and possibly invasion from foreign countries whose leaders may thumb their noses at the very idea of "your rights" and decide you either do what they say or you die.

We're screwed either way, according to the OP. So why even bother making policy at all? For that matter, why even bother having a government?



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 



We're screwed either way, according to the OP.


Actually I've stated a very simple solution that would help to keep us from being screwed, and would benefit us in both ways. To realize how simple this solution is you need only read what the amendments would entail that would correct the act (that have been proposed).



[edit on 7-1-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


I have a coworker / friend for 25 years . This persons Sister makes yearly trips from their old home in Singapore to the US to visit relative who moved here 50 years ago .

This woman has came to America every summer . I consider her a close friend along with my coworker . She owns a home here and one in Singapore . Last Summer she was picked out of a crowd entering LAX and detained for questioning there was a problem with her passport or visa. Being a regular visitor for 25 plus years . I am sure it was a BS story on the airport security.

Picture this A 80 lbs 5' - 1" 79 year old woman. They took her to a interrogation room where she had her shoe laces removed and was searched and was left her standing in her panties and bra and lace less shoes and no socks as they searched her suit cases . And then interrogated her for over 3 hrs . Come to find out the start of the mess was becaise she landed in LAX with toiletries in her carry on bags that were larger than what the Department of homeland insecurity would allow on planes .

After her out rage she made a joke of it and said next time she flys in she will be wearing a bikini and flip flops .

It may not have affected me personally but . When it hurts my friends it does affect me.

What purpose did this encounter serve ?



posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   

... with toiletries in her carry on bags that were larger than what the Department of homeland insecurity would allow on planes


And had she been the exception, and those oversized toiletries actually hid, say a rolled up sheet of plastique, or contained some other small explosive device and she had managed to detonate it, the outrage would be that she was let on the plane in the first place.

Did she not understand that security isn't a joke or a laughing matter in an airport these days? It's not a law that can be "bent" or overlooked no matter how ridiculous the circumstances.

People are always outraged at security doing their job until an attack succeeds and then people cry that security didn't do enough. In between, when attacks are thwarted, security doesn't get nearly enough credit.

I'd say your friend from Singapore got off lucky that she wasn't sent back to Hong Kong for that violation.



posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by sos37
 



We're screwed either way, according to the OP.


Actually I've stated a very simple solution that would help to keep us from being screwed, and would benefit us in both ways. To realize how simple this solution is you need only read what the amendments would entail that would correct the act (that have been proposed).

[edit on 7-1-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]


I've read what you posted. Let me ask you something - how long would it be until your suggestions offend someone else? Until someone else finds what you deem perfectly acceptable to be completely unacceptable?

Therein lies the Catch-22. No one blanket solution will ever fit or cover everyone.



posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 



how long would it be until your suggestions offend someone else?


I’m not talking about my propositions; I’m talking about the actual propositions that have been put together by government officials. Nothing offensive in them far as I’ve seen, they don’t trump the Bill of Rights, but they give proper authority where authority is definitely needed.

Sorry if my wording confused you by the way, that’s just the way I phrase things. I try to get my point across clearly but sometimes it gets muddled and brings about another interpretation that is entirely my doing and not the fault of the reader.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 

One of my Canadian friends drove to Washington in her new truck and she was stopped at the border. She had her passport and all identification and everything, nothing illegal in the car. They detained her in a cell for 6 or so hours and destroyed her truck, stripped it from top to bottom, pretty much dismantled it. She asked why all this happened, and she was understandably infuriated, the response was something to the tune of "Someone with your last name has connections to terrorist actions" or something ludicrous like that. And when they found her completely innocent they wouldn't pay for damages to her truck. I dunno if that story counts... when she finished telling me this all I could say was, I hope you learned your lesson



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Quoted from Ridhya


One of my Canadian friends drove to Washington in her new truck and she was stopped at the border. She had her passport and all identification and everything, nothing illegal in the car. They detained her in a cell for 6 or so hours and destroyed her truck, stripped it from top to bottom, pretty much dismantled it. She asked why all this happened, and she was understandably infuriated, the response was something to the tune of "Someone with your last name has connections to terrorist actions" or something ludicrous like that. And when they found her completely innocent they wouldn't pay for damages to her truck. I dunno if that story counts... when she finished telling me this all I could say was, I hope you learned your lesson


That is most definitely the worst thing i have ever heard of anything happening to a Canadian.. The US is really stepping over bounds here.. I can see Border Control questioning if they have the same last name of a terrorist group or something.. but i am 100% fully aware that they have the technology to look at anyones birth records and go back in the family tree, it would take at most half an hour to look at something like this, instead of 6 and destroying their property. Then they go ahead and use the excuse "it was in the name of national security" which is total BS in any sense of the statement in this situation.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
This is just my opinion. I could be wrong. Or I could be stating the obvious. I didn't take the time to check.

But it seems to me the only reason the patriot act indirectly includes EVERY single American citizen as a potential terrorist is because if the act were to only specify Muslim?

Well...that would be racial-discrimination/racial-profiling. The ACLU would cry "Double-Standard!". And in modern-day America? Political correctness is all the rage. Personally I think political correctness is a far more dangerous terror-threat to the national security of America than a suicide bomber.

Only in America would it be deemed horribly "Un-American" to single out a particular ethnicity as opposed to stepping on American civil-liberties for the sake of national security.

Now I'm not suggesting we should re-think our strategy and begin singling out Muslims.

I am suggesting that we should re-think our convictions and stop dancing to the tune of TPTB. And their song about "saving the world from itself" when their song is really about "saving the extra all-mighty dollar (from being in the reach of those who can use it to put us, TPTB, out of business)". And start re-embracing true conservative values and ideology.

The war on terror is a joke. Because the target of this war is an enemy which is only a sheer symptom of the actual disease. A disease afflicting an old dying woman, lady-liberty, who died a long time ago shortly before everything that lead up to this war ignited and set off a chain reaction we are barely at the climax of.

The war on terror is not about saving Americans. Because if it really was? We wouldn't need to be trampling on American civil-liberties. It's like every other scam orchestrated by the same people. The "War On Drugs", "Global-Warming/Climate-Change (or whatever the hell they're calling it now)", Y2K (whereas we all know turned out to be one hell of a clever investment--it's got us where we are now--living in a world terror.) This war is about feeding a gore-hungry dragon, the tool of overly-excessive greed, protecting the interests of the global capitalist-extremist radical elite's agenda.

We lost the war on terror long before it even begun once we decided to trample over American civil liberties. The fighting is all an illusion. An illusion with the sole purpose of distracting those whom it is meant to protect from seeing the true enemy---misappropriation.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Marked One
 



But it seems to me the only reason the patriot act indirectly includes EVERY single American citizen as a potential terrorist is because if the act were to only specify Muslim?


The point IS NOT who the patriotic act names as a potential terrorist. The point is that it gives no definition for "terrorist". A "terrorist" is whatever the government decides a terrorist is as at any given time. That's the problem. There should be no wiggle room for the government when it comes to such a serious issue, no official should be able to simply claim you are an enemy combatant just because you protest against the government or make an offensive comment about the president.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by Marked One
 



But it seems to me the only reason the patriot act indirectly includes EVERY single American citizen as a potential terrorist is because if the act were to only specify Muslim?


The point IS NOT who the patriotic act names as a potential terrorist. The point is that it gives no definition for "terrorist". A "terrorist" is whatever the government decides a terrorist is as at any given time. That's the problem. There should be no wiggle room for the government when it comes to such a serious issue, no official should be able to simply claim you are an enemy combatant just because you protest against the government or make an offensive comment about the president.


That is what I am trying to say. I agree with you. That's why I used the word "indirectly". I used it in a rhetorical sense. I didn't make that clear. Since it doesn't give a clear precise definition for a "terrorist"? That pretty much makes every individual on American soil "free game" in the hunt for terrorists.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Marked One
 


Yes but you seem to think zeroing in on one group will help this and it won’t. Assuming that anyone in one group could be a terrorist is just as preposterous, and assuming no American can be a terrorist is as well. Making our national security acknowledge and adhere to what they consider a enemy combatant under a reasonable characterization is key to fixing this problem.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by Marked One
 


Yes but you seem to think zeroing in on one group will help this and it won’t. Assuming that anyone in one group could be a terrorist is just as preposterous, and assuming no American can be a terrorist is as well. Making our national security acknowledge and adhere to what they consider a enemy combatant under a reasonable characterization is key to fixing this problem.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]


I seem to think zeroing in on one group will help the matter? That's not necessarily what I was thinking. I didn't make that clear because I was in a big hurry in making that post. (Because I'm reading this here and playing a video game at the same time lol).

I was more or less trying to reflect that "zeroing in on one particular group" is the mentality of a lot of people out there. And I agree with you--this is not the way to go. It only makes things worst.

I think the key to fixing the problem with the patriot act's questionable definition of an "enemy combatant" is comprehension.

We need to ask questions before we start shooting. Although the individual or group who is being subject to said questioning may be the one to start the actual shooting. We need to have a legitimate trump card up our sleeve that will render the target of the opposing group/individual's counter-assault /counter-argument a non-viable strategic asset.

In other words we need to trick the enemy into revealing their true face before we pursue them.

Now something just came to my mind out of the blue.

I'm going to go on an extremely WILD hunch...and say the patriot act that we all know and love is NOT the real 'patriot act'. It's a sort of preamble. What I mean by this is that the rest of the patriot act? (The one which picks up where the original patriot act left off, whereas it is suppose to mention who is a terrorist and who isn't?) is probably highly classified information.

In other words. The government knows who the real terrorists are. They're just not going to disclose it in a document which is readily accessible to the general public in order to prevent the enemy from catching on to our game.

If this makes any sense to you folks?



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Marked One
 


Okay, sorry if I missed your point , must have read your post wrong.


[edit on 16-4-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 03:37 AM
link   
im 18

i grew up in this country, visited jamestown and williamsburg many times, and know quite a bit about american history.

when i was 14, i felt good growing up in a country where i had rights.

now i dont have rights. i do not trust the government. they have legal rights to come in my house at any time and search it or imprison me without a trial.

theires TONS of people becoming adults into a world where THEY dont have rights, and they dont even know it.

the patriot act disgusts me, i was like 15 when i heard about it and it made me sick to my stomach.

how do you people who lived in times where these acts weren't enacted not see them as huge problems. i was a kid when i heard about the patriot act and could CLEARLY see a massive taking away of peoples rights. i was disgusted as a young teenager. how does someone who's 43 not see a horrible thing being enacted on the people.

my generation is ignorant, they think its how it'll always be, how is always has been, alaywas should be/

you can be a 64 year old white grandma, and go to jail for terrorist actions. there is no defining what a terrorist is in the patriot act. it applys to any and ALL american citizens.

#in sheep


[edit on 8-6-2009 by whateverponcho]

[edit on 8-6-2009 by whateverponcho]



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Has the Patriot Act affected you?

Who me? Oh no, not at all... Other than invalidating my birth certificate, that is.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join