Beware! Patriot Act II is coming!

Originally posted by esdad71
I have a question...

Has the PAtriot ACT I affected Anyone in this forum. Are there any members who have family members being held against their will?


You see, People always seems to talk about how they are not going to take it and won't let the gov't push them around, but i bet they gas up that 9 MPG SUV and head up PIzza Hut and then to the SUPER DUPER WAL MART to further support the passing of the PAtriot Act II.

How, you ask. Because mass consumption has replaced common sense in America. THe average American would give up every right they had in order to ensure Fast Food, Reality TV and SUV sales. People are more concerned about American Idol, then the current Presidential Race. One day the small majority of us who know what is coming will wake up, and let's make sure we are prepared.

I just pray 9/11 was not our Reichstag.....

lol, that is one of my philosophys.

Even if that is, why should it affect you?

No matter how much of that is true >.

Originally posted by mrmulder
You need to understand something. If you or anyone in your family is carrying a gun or doing something that's seen as a crime you are in violation of the Patriot Act.

Carrying a licensed gun is neither a crime nor a violation of the Patriot Act. In no place can or will you be arrested for carrying a gun. If my dad and I are out, and he's got a gun but I don't, I'm not in violation of anything. It doesn't matter in that case if his gun is "legal" or not (and that pesky ol' 2nd amendment doesn't mention ANYTHING about gov't gun control). *I* am still innocent of any wrongdoing.

I'd love to hear any verifiable accounts of anyone's rights being violated or removed as a result of the Patriot Act. Sorry to be a pill, but they should include a link to a REAL news source (You know, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc).

[edit on 11-6-2004 by penginkun]

I've been waiting on Patriot II since 2001.

I'm pretty sure its "impending coming" is a little alarmist.

Still, a troubling bill.

Originally posted by penginkun
Sorry to be a pill, but they should include a link to a REAL news source (You know, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc).

haha, 'a REAL news source' and 'Fox' and 'CNN' all in the same line

now that's a joke if i've ever seen one

Originally posted by dz

Originally posted by penginkun
Sorry to be a pill, but they should include a link to a REAL news source (You know, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc).

haha, 'a REAL news source' and 'Fox' and 'CNN' all in the same line

now that's a joke if i've ever seen one

Yeah, I know, it's silly to trust serious, respectable news sources instead of lone self-proclaimed scientists/experts posting outrageous stuff on private web pages. What was I thinking?

[edit on 12-6-2004 by penginkun]

from curme
Is that why I joined so many branches of the military? I was begining to wonder. I think it is because I feel a need to fight for American ideas and beliefs, like jurisprudence, that people want to strip away. Enemies both foreign and domestic.

That can be done more effectively by staying in one branch of the military instead of padding the resume'. Nah, sounds like a milk job to me.

BTW, what is the military's position on having enemy sympathizers among their ranks?

Patriot Act II!!!!!!!! aka Domestic Security ENhancement Act of 2003:
en.wikipedia.org...


By the way, what do you mean by enemy sympathizers, anyone who disagrees with government's beliefs???? That's the BS George Bush spouts, if anyone disagrees with the government then they are a terrorist in my eyes...That's the most ridiculous, ludicrous, abominable thing I have ever heard, and it makes me all fired up, please tell me you aren't another weak, puppet, sheep of a dog (I think they knew what they said)......

[edit on 12-6-2004 by Jamuhn]

[edit on 12-6-2004 by Jamuhn]

I know this will get boos but thats basically how Hitler operated. Granted he went much farther. But if you werent in his image you were the enemy. I think the Soviets were the same way.

There's certainly a lot of hype around certain parts of the PA (Feds getting your book lists from the library), but I can't say that I've read any news stories (yet) about it being used to prosecute non-terrorists.

What I find troubling about the Patriot Act is not so much how it's currently being used (to catch al Qaida), but more how it could be used in the future. It does seem to erode our civil liberties and I shudder to think of it in the hands of a socialist.

The current Patriot Act has provisions that sunset the FBIs enhanced surveillance powers at the end of 2005 unless Congress re-authorizes it. While there are those in Congress who are trying to make the powers permanent (Congressional Bill - S. 2476), hopefully they'll fail and the Patriot Act will wind up in the "ash heap of history" (yes, I've been watching Reagan speeches with everyone else this week).

Senate.Gov - Search for "S. 2476"

Originally posted by factfinder38
Simon Wiesenthal Center has a new list That includes any sites that have discussion on topics such as Learned Elders Of Zion, Jewish spies in the USA, Or the conspiracy of 911 and possible Jewish connection have all been deemed hate speech.

This is a far cry from your original post

Sites like ATS have already been branded Hate sites and that makes us all guilty by association.

which implies that we are guilty in the eyes of the Patriot Act.

:shk:

Originally posted by Jamuhn
By the way, what do you mean by enemy sympathizers, anyone who disagrees with government's beliefs???? That's the most ridiculous, ludicrous, abominable thing I have ever heard, and it makes me all fired up, please tell me you aren't another weak, puppet, sheep of a dog (I think they knew what they said)......

Do you see what you have just done? Need I point it out to you? You asked me for a definition, then answered it (erroneously) yourself, then tried to attribute YOUR definition to me.

Then you get all mad about what you have just done.

Enemy sympathizers are those people who love the enemy - in this case al Qaeda. They support them. They do not want to see them mistreated. They apologize to al Qaeda for the US ' treatment of them. They want them to receive all of the benefits of our legal system, and they want them to beat the rap against them so that they (al Qaeda) can go back out and murder more people. And when they do murder more people (as they certainly will), the sympathizers will blame the US for Al Qaeda's actions. That's the short definition.

So tell me, Jamuhn:

Do you support al Qaeda?

Originally posted by Indy
I know this will get boos but thats basically how Hitler operated. Granted he went much farther. But if you werent in his image you were the enemy. I think the Soviets were the same way.

I'm curious. Have you been visited by Goverment Man, come from the Government, to make sure you Think American and Act American and Do Things The American Way(tm, patent pending)?

Anyone who tries to tell you that you're not patriotic because you don't love/support/want to bear the children of president Bush is an idiot and you don't need to pay attention to him/her/it/whatever. Anyone who tries to make you shut up, or who threatens you with sanctions because you're on the "other" side is a dope.

I have YET to hear of ANY incident involving the current administration wherein a private citizen was threatened or harrassed in any way by any government official or agency because he didn't agree with the president's policies. So why is everyone up in arms as if this were a regular occurrence?

I also hear people equating George Bush with Adolph Hitler. Fine, let's do a brief comparison.

Hitler espoused the extermination of the Jews, homosexuals and a group I suppose we can refer to generically as persons of colour, meaning pretty much everyone who wasn't blond haired and blue eyed.

George Bush gave us a tax cut at a time when our nation's economy was in the crapper thanks in no small part to the short-sighted, self-serving fiscal policies of the previous president.

Hitler took over nation after nation, establishing each country as part of Deutschland.

Bush has invaded two countries, routed known criminals and deposed despotic leaders. In one country he has established a democratic government. In the second he is attempting this, while the enemy (Islamofacist extremists) do everything they can to prevent it, knowing full well they won't be able to operate openly and oppress the populace any longer if democracy comes to Iraq.

(here's one for the numerologists)
Adolph Hitler's name has 12 characters.
George Bush's name has but 10.
COINCIDENCE???? I think not!

Adolph Hitler was a member of the NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY (Nazi).

George Bush is a (semi)conservative Republican. If you want socialists, turn and look leftward to Kerry, Kennedy, etc.

Adolph Hitler, in his quest to rid the world of the Jews, et al, rounded up millions of people into concetration camps, and wound up killing six million of them. He fomented anti-Jew violence with virulent propaganda, exploiting existing, latent anti-semitism in the populace.

George Bush hasn't rounded up anyone except known criminals, and they're certainly not being exterminated. Muslims everywhere in the US go about their daily business unmolested. He's called (erronously or not) Islam a religion of "peace" and has not advocated hatred or violence toward them or any other group.

I could go on here, but really...do I need to?

jsobecky,
I hope you understood the fact that I wanted to keep the conversation between you and I as brief as possible. That is why I answered my own question, to let you know that I hope you weren't attributing this erroneous definition to enemy sympathizers. That is the definition that George Bush and John Ashcroft uses for enemy sympathizers.

You have to understand that when the Patriot Act was created it did not refer specifically to al Qaeda, but to terrorists. This is not about supporting al Qaeda, but about being a terrorist sympathizer. A terrorist is so broadly defined it goes way out of the bounds of al Qaeda. Ideals can brand you as a terrorist.

Do you understand that this is not a war against al Qaeda, but a war against all those who the government suspects as having a REASON to be a TERRORIST? That is why only reasonable cause is needed for searches. Nobody wants to have the al Qaeda around. But nobody wants to be spied upon by the FBI for going to an Islamic church or for going to a protest.

But back to your comments, obviously you could not comprehend the meaning of what I said, and I hope I explained for you why I threw my conclusions out there to your own rationale before you answered to let you know why I might be asking such a question.

Check these sites out and maybe some of you will understand our concerns. Everything you read and see from our government must be looked at as a lawyer would look at it. Remember the words [I did not have sex with that woman] and how that was not a lie by legal definition. Learn to question all wording for meaning and a lot of things become much clearer.




www.eff.org...

www.aclu.org...

www.aclu.org...

My problems with the patriot act:

1) Under the patriot act, the definition of a terrorist isn't just someone who carries out a terrorist attack anymore. It's also someone who provides material, logistical, and solicitous support to terrorists...even if they do so unknowingly.

2) It allows for the collection of DNA and adding that DNA to a "terrorist" database in the case of, and I quote, "any crime of violence."

3) It wasn't even fully read by a MOJORITY OF CONGRESS. That's a documented fact. Infact, many members of congress who voted for it's passage later said they wouldn't have if they'd had enough time to more thoroughly examine the docmument.

4) Before, if law enforcement wanted to tap a phone, come into someone's home and take their computer, go through their things, etc. or compell a person or organization to come up with records of their activities, there was a pretty high level of "proof" that had to be established under U.S. law, and usualy even more so if a foreign country wanted to do the same things. But now, to read your emails, or tap your phone, all they have to do is go to a judge and say they have reason to believe access to those things are in the interest of national security, or part of an ongoing terrorism investigation. No warrant is needed, and it all takes place in secret, not in a public hearing. Furthermore, those wiretaps can be roving, which means they aren't limited to the individual that the "good reason" was established in reference to. Lastly, in the few remaining cases where a warrant IS required, they are no longer required to report or even record at all, what happens when they serve that warrant. Even if you don't believe the government is using this power for some nefarious purpose (and I have my doubts), you have to realize that someone, somewhere, someday, is going to abuse that. Mark my words.

5) Finaly, it seems ironic to me that the government's approach to the crisis sparked by 9/11 (which was present before 9/11 and is still present today) is to take away more of our legal protection under the law. Did the freedom we enjoy in this country contribute to 9/11 happening? If so, then Democracy isn't worth it by the standards of those who drafted this law. Security is more important to them. Furthermore, terrorist acts increased in 2003, despite our protracted "war on terror," of which the patriot act is a part...and as others noted, there are still terrorist cells active in this country right now! And they want to EXPAND the Patriot act? How will taking away more of our legal protections prevent terrorism? That's my biggest problem with the patriot act: it's efficacy isn't as great as the impact it could POTENTIALY have on everyday U.S. citizens (even if, as some have said, it hasn't yet).

If none of this disturbs you, let me quote the new legal definition of a terrorist: "Groups or individuals operating entirely inside the United States, attempting to influence the United States government or population to effect political or social change by engaging in criminal activity."

Am I the only one who thinks that could be interpreted in an extremely broad range of ways?

I'm not saying it will be. But I do think we should be slightly more concerned about it than most people have been. That's all.

(Note: I am a non-violent person and I don't condone violent or criminal acts of any kind. But I do believe that all citizens should have the right to legal protection, and that those rights are being slowly eroded. I respect the opinions of those who disagree).

well trough the eyes of a outside observer it looks like USA is heading into the dark ages, in no time at all its citizens will be potential terrorists and suspects.
I hope you find a way to avoid the madness that is consuming you and regain some of the "after WW2" glory of peacekeepers and fighters for freedom, becouse right now that is not so, no matter what your gov. or that sonofabush tells you. They are making you all look stupid with their actions! Resist damnit! Looks to me the whole world is starting to think that everyone in the USA in a bush, one way or another

peace!


ps: hey didnt that time traveling dude mention something like this will happen? (just a thought)

I know that the Patriot Act is of great concern to the American people and from what ive heard they should be ( im not an American so please dont flame me, but it does seem to an outsider that the majority of Americans are against the Patriot Act ). What does concern me personaly is that where America leads the rest of the World follows eventually. So even though the Patriot Act is an American policy or law then sooner or later it will spread across the pond in one way or another to my country the UK. we already have an act that is similer to the Partiot Act called the "Terrorist Act" that alows the interpritation(SP) of Terrorist to be very broad indeed.
www.hmso.gov.uk...
So any resistance to the Patriot Act also helps to stop the spread of it in one form or another to my country.

Originally posted by AceWombat04
3) It wasn't even fully read by a MOJORITY OF CONGRESS. That's a documented fact. Infact, many members of congress who voted for it's passage later said they wouldn't have if they'd had enough time to more thoroughly examine the docmument.

NO BILL *EVER* gets read by the "majority" of congress. They're hundreds of pages long, most of them. They've got riders and hidden clauses and "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" pork stuck on them.

I think two things should be mandated: first, that no vote shall be cast until each voting party shall have read each bill in its entireity and second, that no bill shall be amended with irrelevant clauses. In other words, no pork. Come to think of it, a third mandate comes to mind: no bill shall be considered for passage into law if similar laws already exist in at least half of the states in the union. Saves us from crap like the "Can Spam" act. Might even remove the DMCA and the patriot act from consideration.

And that is why it'll never happen...