Liberty's revenge in the USA?

[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.

[PanzerJaeger]

Im talking about Janet Reno and the true infringement of rights during the Clinton administration.

If you really want an example of the government bursting into a place and shooting it up - look at Waco.

[_Martyr_]

Ok, I thought you were talking about the Communications Decency Act or whatever it was called... I know well who Reno was, I just assumed you were reffering to a specific Act, not the period of her office in general.

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?

[bmolsson]

Im talking about Janet Reno and the true infringement of rights during the Clinton administration.

So that is your argument for Patriot Act ??? Interesting....

[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.

[Spetulhu]

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.

It may have something to do with publicity. Having the WTC towers knocked down made people pay attention to the laws being passed. The organized crime laws open for abuse just didn't gather as much public interest.

[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.

[Xiahou]

Right, my understanding is that approval by a federal judge is still required. The difference is that it allows the hearings to be fast tracked to an intelligence court that will handle such requests in a more timely manner- still federal judges though.

[Tribesman]

Well Panzer since you havn't changed you mind over the Patriot Act like you said you would if you had heard of anyone who had been affected by it I shall assume that was a bluff . I mean surely you had heard of Ted kennedy his family have been in American politics for a long time , one of them even achieved the highest office in the country .

So onto a different track .
The patriot act hasnt "come for" anybody.
Yes the 1200+ people detained in the early life of the legislation were nobody really , there were tentative links established between 10-15 of them and Al-Qaida , but none were linked to 9/11 in any way and none were charged with any terrorism related offences . Then you have the second batch of 800+ people followed by a third batch of 1000+ , and it goes on and on .

Who?
Very good question , who indeed ?
Well there is a a little thing in the act (section 201) that means that the government does not have to identify who they have detained under the act indefinately , until they have criminal charges filed against them , even if those persons are American ctizens .
So far out of the thousands detained how many have been charged with anything ? Less than 200 , of those few how many were charged with terrorist related offences ? 39 !!!! of those 39 how many were charged in connection to middle eastern terrorism (not just Al-qaida) ? Less than a third .
And one of those is being charged with falsely claiming that he had links to Al-Qaida and knew of bomb plots against 5 American cities .
So despite the all encompassing powers of this act what has it achieved ?
Practically bugger all .
One example of a really dangerous individual who was detained under the act was Farouk Abdel-Muhti . Two years in detention without legal counsel or any recourse to justice . Then he is just released with no apology or anything , they coundn't even get him on immigration violations .
His supposed "crime" which led to his loss of Liberty ?
He campaigned politically against the Israeli occupation of Palestine .

Since the American German and the Irish German have bought up the Riechstag fire and the similarities between the laws passed then and the Patriot Act maybe it is an idea to compare the "Verordnung des Reichsprasidenten zum Shutz von Volk und Staat" of 1933 with the American version . One difference is that the German version was written and passed within 24 hours of the "attack" , congress took slightly longer