Liberty's revenge in the USA?

[ichi]

The difference between America and Nazi Germany is that people who are not criminals need not fear the intrusion.

There's a long history of abuses that denies this.

The difference between America and Nazi Germany is that we haven't condoned shoving jews into ovens, but IMHO its pretty naive to think that a law as powerful as the Patriot Act isn't without it's dangers.

It seems that some Republicans have come to their senses, and realized that we don't need to have the ability to pry into people's lives, even innocent hard-working non-criminal lives, without a few checks and balances.

I pay my taxes, don't blow people up, and generally am law-abiding, and the Patriot Act makes me nervous. If someone else doesn't mind it, that's OK, but I'm glad the House has come to its senses and stepped back from a slippery edge.

ichi

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The answer to most of your questions is that the Patriot Act removes the Judicary, the one branch of the government that is independent of the Legislators and the Executive (at least its meant to be...) from this process.

It does not remove it. You still have to see a judge, just a special one. Also it may have slipped by you all but even this has never been used. Once more our drug laws are far more invasive of our privacy as is the tax return the government requires us to file every year. The Patriot act as its wriiten now doesnt threaten me at all. Without security there is no freedom.

[Xiahou]

Once more our drug laws are far more invasive of our privacy as is the tax return the government requires us to file every year.

Very true, as are many of the laws created to fight organized crime. There is a bunch of spin taking place on this subject- the most upsetting part of this I know of are the sneak and peek searches, but these have been possible in non-terrorism cases for a long time. I also understand that Feds want the ability to write their own 'national security' warrants, but I think that was a proposed expansion of the PATRIOT Act- one which is unlikely to be passed, nor would I want it to be.

So far, I really haven't heard anything but scare tactics and fear mongering from opponents of the Act. Can someone point out something 'new and terrible' under the PATRIOT Act that wasnt already possible elsewhere? If someone wants to work themselves into a lather over something, why not look into the RICO Act?

[doc_bean]

Very true, as are many of the laws created to fight organized crime.

Probably true, I think it's a good thing that people are standing up for their rights again. This is a good first step. The war on terrorism and the war on drugs can (and have) been used against law-abiding citizens of the US. The patriot act probably less so. Although, apparently, you can get arrested for trying to translate/publish an Arab book.

The point is that the powers of government should be limited, surely every republican can agree with that ? Otherwise, why have the Bill of Rights, you could just trust your government and surely nothing bad will happen to you ? The Patriot Act was a clear attack on the separation between the private and the public, the basis of the first amendment, and if you check the Federalist papers, one of the founding principles of the US democracy.

And let's face it, it's a waste of money. Checking kids that want to read about Islam ? Monitoring debate groups that talk about how we should have world peace ? You can never have perfect security in a free country. You'll just have the learn to live with that. A terrorist can always find a way. That, of course, doesn't mean you can't try to stop them, but you have to focus your efforts, and you have to make sure no innocents get hurt along the way.

The Patriot act gives too much room for possible abuse.

[Al Khalifah]

Monitoring debate groups that talk about how we should have world peace ?

Let's hope they don't read the org then otherwise we're all doomed apart from PanzerJager.

[PanzerJaeger]

Sorry to keep going back to the pre-war Germany references, especially given the nationality of the person under-fire here. I don't like digging up this period from the past but I think this poem by Pastor Martin Niemöller is especially relevant for this quoute:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

The poem isn't Nazi specific. If you tolerate unfair or extreme measures because they don't affect you, then don't be surprised when one day extreme measures are introduced that do affect you and nobody stands up for you.

Youve made my point for me. The patriot act hasnt "come for" anybody.

Its funny to see certain people so opposed to the patriot act, after not making a sound during the Reno dictatorship.

[_Martyr_]

Reno, Reno... That was either 1993 or 1996 was it not. Either way I was either 7 or 10 years old at the time. Forgive me for not being more vocal!

Anyway, didnt the ACLU successfully battle some of its implementation in court? Seems pretty consistant to me, not just against something Bush-backed.

[Xiahou]

And let's face it, it's a waste of money. Checking kids that want to read about Islam ? Monitoring debate groups that talk about how we should have world peace ? You can never have perfect security in a free country. You'll just have the learn to live with that. A terrorist can always find a way. That, of course, doesn't mean you can't try to stop them, but you have to focus your efforts, and you have to make sure no innocents get hurt along the way.

The Patriot act gives too much room for possible abuse.

Can someone show me where this is delineated in the PATRIOT Act? As far as I know, monitoring library records and debate groups is already allowable with court approval. How has this changed?

[PanzerJaeger]

On the contrary. Many people have been detained on grounds made lawful under the Patriot Act.

Who?

[PanzerJaeger]

And again, should I have been more vocal as 5 - 10 year old about the civil liberty encroachments in another country?? Surely I can only protest and speak against what is happening in my time? And wasnt the ACLU up in arms about this stuff?

The point was: people who have a problem with the Patriot Act didnt seem to have a problem with the much greater infringements of previous years. The supposed outrage is very political in nature.

[doc_bean]

Can someone show me where this is delineated in the PATRIOT Act? As far as I know, monitoring library records and debate groups is already allowable with court approval. How has this changed?

Well, it's what the original post was about.

I think the 'court approval' part got changed, or at least that's what the leftist media leads me to believe.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I think the 'court approval' part got changed, or at least that's what the leftist media leads me to believe.

They do their job well dont they? Again its just what judge you have to go in front of that has changed.