The Patriot Act Uncovered, Welcome to a police state Options

[Silver]

the govt. can arrest you and hold you with out cause for an indefinent amount of time, as well have access to yur medical records, library records, well lets just say you have no rights and they can even take your home and give it to a developer... (last part isnt part of the PA)

[realdeal]

Hmmmm... But if I am a good American citizen with nothing to hide... does it really matter?

[Silver]

what if one of your friends isnt? the tie betwen you and him might be enough to have you brought in, what about charitable contributions and who your employer's contacts are. (not for you but other peoples employers etc.) schools etc. alot of what ifs but its still unreasonable to say that they have the right to do this to us. we still control the gov. (so we think) but I think seriously its a mix of bolth, gov. over stepping its bounds and people like TE talking to much. we do need to push the Gov. back a little bit, I dont want to be xrayed every 2 seconds and being searched w/o cause I dont have anything to hide but yet they have no reason to search me. Im a white male @ 27 y/o. I dont fit the terrorist profile. they want to stop this, cut it off at the border. that is truly the only serious protection we have. enlist the help of the public, make a national border protection of voulenteers to cover the border such as the minute men did. we have people poping up all over the border and cant control it. We are on the verge of a Cold war era Russia... sick if you ask me. I supported bush up to this point, time he made the effort to lesson the restrictions on the public. the local police are over powered (in sense that they have too much power), example is putting 200 rounds in a car that the driver was trying to escape. BS

[All over but the Crying]

Hmmmm... But if I am a good American citizen with nothing to hide... does it really matter?

You have entirely too much trust in the government. The Patriot Act has no checks and balances.

[Too Exclusive]

http://www.infowars.com/pdfs/patriot2-hi.pdf
patriot act II.
http://www.infowars.com/print/patriot_act/alexs_analysis.htm
u can read thru this then look at the legislation to check the accuracy of what he says.

[holden_caulfield]

Hmmmm... But if I am a good American citizen with nothing to hide... does it really matter?

Yes.

[realdeal]

Hmmmm... But if I am a good American citizen with nothing to hide... does it really matter?

Yes.

How so? So they can see what library books I borrow?

[holden_caulfield]

Hmmmm... But if I am a good American citizen with nothing to hide... does it really matter?

Yes.

How so? So they can see what library books I borrow?

I think, like someone before has said, that you place way too much trust in this administration. There is nobody to ensure that the government does not abuse this power. Under the PA, American citizens can be charged in military tribunals, and not federal courts, which means that the process will be secret, and that many of the rights normally granted them would be taken away. Theoretically, that is very scary. I do not trust this government, or any government for that matter, with that kind of power. Sorry.

In the big scope of things, looking at which books I check from the library out is not a big deal, and if that was all it took to make these problems go away, I would gladly give that freedom up. People like to ridicule those who criticize the patriot act by saying, "If you care so much about terror, why do you care so much about something so trivial like library books?" But it's the principle of it all. If our civil rights are violated in any way, small or large, it would open the door and justify other "sacrifices" we would have to make. And again, half of us just doesn't trust this administration. my 2 c.

[Druid]

http://www.infowars.com/print/patriot_act/alexs_analysis.htm
u can read thru this then look at the legislation to check the accuracy of what he says.

More lies from the people you seem to kneel down to pray to.
This is taken from the opening line form the page you linked to
"Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex) told the Washington Times that no member of Congress was allowed to read the first Patriot Act that was passed by the House on October 27, 2001. The first Patriot Act was universally decried by civil libertarians and Constitutional scholars from across the political spectrum. William Safire, while writing for the New York Times, described the first Patriot Act's powers by saying that President Bush was seizing dictatorial control.

Here is why that is an absolute joke and proves how fools are so quick and conveniently served crap that they will happily gobble it up, if it backs what they already believe or want to believe.

Here are the two points that glared out at me when I read the 1st paragraph.
"Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex) told the Washington Times that no member of Congress was allowed to read the first Patriot Act that was passed by the House on October 27, 2001"

I did a google search for the exact phrase "no member of Congress was allowed to read"
I wasn't at all surprised to see not a single of the 100 hits using that exact phrase linked to the Washington Times who it supposedly came from. The 100 Google hits all pointed to sites saying the exact same thing but not a single one of them linking to where this phantom quote came from, at best 20 of them linked back to one of 3 infowars pages saying much the same thing as the one you linked to.
I especially liked the infowares page that has a picture of Bush in a Hitler outfit waving a Nazi flag ( Yep thats where I would go to get unbiased information )

Heck maybe I was wrong, and there really was something from the Washington Times saying something... anything close to that. I spent another 10 minutes using the Washington Times archive search to find anything from Congressman Ron Paul making this statement. Nope not a single word. I would be very interested if you could tell me where this quote form Congressman Ron Paul came from, that is besides out of thin air.
BTW I got a huge laugh out of the fact there were 100+ sites using this exact same quote and not a single one willing or able to say where it came from.
Then again, I'm sure the people copying this statement would care less if it was true or not.

The other part I found funny was the assertion no one in Congress was allowed to read the bill they voted on. All I can say to that is
pleeeaasseee, is anyone actually dumb enough to believe that.
I really have to wonder how many people read over that line, which appears 3 times in this post so far, without giving it a second thought.
Oh yea man it happens all the time, the senate and house vote on stuff daily which they are not allowed to read. Wake the hell up guys, that isn't how it works.

The critics of the patriot act have done a great job misrepresenting possible and hypothetical abuses as holy fact.
I'll give you an example of the wide latitude of reasoning these people adopt with their criticisms
The right to bear arms could be misused or abused to allow people to kill other innocent people, therefor the second amendment should be repealed.
This is the same type of logic used by those who knowingly misrepresent what the Patriot Act is about and it's effects on U.S. citizenry

A few examples of what and how they misrepresent the facts,Contrary to what some people think or at least want you to think, the sky is not falling.
Here are a few of the points the critics try to use to inflame people.
Sneak & Peeks warrants are unconstitutional
Sorry but they have been around for 2 decades, regardless of the rhetoric used by critics about how they will be abused.
Although a lot of information about usage of the patriot act isn't released, the number of sneak and peek warrants have been.
This wide scale abuse people like the ACLU talk about amount to a total of 61.
This is 61 out of over 32,000 federal search warrants, which equals less than 2% were these terrible "sneak and peek warrants" that critics claim will be so abused that big brother will be spying on every citizen.

Oh my god they can look at my Library records
1st of all this has been completely misrepresented by critics.
3rd party records never had any special protection, nor should they.
The ACLU cry of concern has centered on
"this lets the FBI "spy on a person because they don't like the books she reads, or because . . . she wrote a letter to the editor that criticized government policy."
Total hogwash, critics seem to blink and miss this part of the act where it says several times that it doesn't apply to citizen activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Kind of an important distinction the critics keep missing for whatever reason.

The FBI doesn't need to get a court order for warrants under the patriot act
Untrue, in two different ways. Some critics even go so far as to insinuate a judge doesn't need to sign the order.
All warrants under the Patriot Act go through the FISC court which is comprised of 7 federal district courts judges, which BTW isn't picked by the administration as many people try and act like, they are picked by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Each member of the FISC court serves a seven year term with 1 member rotating out every year.
While on the subject of the FISC court I find it rather amusing none of the current critics had boo to say when the FISC powers were greatly expanded by Clinton under the Intelligence Appropriation Act of 1995. Hmmm... I wonder why that is???
Or even better along the same lines how about the same critics never said boo when Clinton gave the Attorney General authorization to approve physical searches under EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949. This ability of the Attorney General which people are screaming about now has actually existed for 10 years.
Just so there will be no misunderstanding, I'm not bringing up this last bit as a Clinton bash, I actually agree with it because I know it was the answer to limitations found during the investigation of how Aldrich Ames got away with spying for so long.

[holden_caulfield]

William Safire is a hack. I don't care how many words he knows.

[Druid]

Under the PA, American citizens can be charged in military tribunals, and not federal courts, which means that the process will be secret, and that many of the rights normally granted them would be taken away. Theoretically, that is very scary. I do not trust this government, or any government for that matter, with that kind of power. Sorry.

This is another great example of misconceptions surrounding the Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act has nothing to do with anyone being charged in a military tribunal.
What has happened is the Patriot Act has became a catch-all for controversial policies from the Bush Administration.
Military tribunals actually come from policies based on the president's war powers in the Constitution and no not apply to U.S. citizens.
Another fact which has become somewhat distorted is Bush didn't create the idea or change anything when it comes to military tribunals or unlawful combatants, the precedent comes from a 60 year old Supreme court case involving Nazi saboteurs.

Or more to the point, Bush signed an Executive Order late 2001 which explicitly prohibits U.S. citizens being tried in a military tribunal.

As much talk as there has been about U.S. citizens being held as unlawful enemy combatants or how the Constitution is under assault. Stories talking about how Bush has declaring the right to lock up anyone, meaning any American, any place, at any time, then hold him indefinitely, well that huge number actually comes down to 3.
Yasar Esam Hamdi who was captured in Afghanistan armed after a firefight with U.S. forces
Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri who was a member of a al-Qaeda sleeper cell, who by the way was under multiple civilian charges when deemed an unlawful enemy combatant.
Jose Padilla who was arrested after his return flight from Pakistan where he meet with members of al-Qaeda who gave him money and bomb making plans. Information about Padilla came from the interrogation of a captured al-Qaeda leader who previously talked to Padilla about him possibly being used to build and set off a dirty bomb.
Of the 3 cases I find Padilla's the most interesting for several reasons.
The groups ( ACLU, some media outlets ) who has taken up his cause refuse to use his real name which is Abdullah al Muhajir. He legally changed it when he converted to Islam.
Why do these groups refuse to use his legal and chosen name?
Or how about the media reports where one newspaper describes him as a "juvenile delinquent" or another one talking about his "prison spell in Florida".
How about calling a convicted murderer, a convicted murderer versus talking about how he converted to Islam during his stay in a Florida prison without bothering to say what he was in prison for. Sorry but I find that very strange.

Feel free to accuse me supporting trampling on these poor guys civil rights, but in all honesty I could care less if they were all shot for treason, which by the way Yasar Esam Hamdi could be seeing as how he was captured while he actively took up arms against the United States and it's soldiers.

[Too Exclusive]

http://www.infowars.com/print/patriot_act/alexs_analysis.htm
u can read thru this then look at the legislation to check the accuracy of what he says.

More lies from the people you seem to kneel down to pray to.

which is why i posted the link to the actual legislation for u to look at, of course, i bet u didnt even bother to open the ACTUAL LEGISLATION. go ahead, look for urself. it's not like he's giving his analysis of some document we cant read, i posted the link to the document right above it so u can read and check what he's saying.

[Too Exclusive]

http://www.infowars.com/print/patriot_act/alexs_analysis.htm
u can read thru this then look at the legislation to check the accuracy of what he says.

Heck maybe I was wrong, and there really was something from the Washington Times saying something... anything close to that. I spent another 10 minutes using the Washington Times archive search to find anything from Congressman Ron Paul making this statement. Nope not a single word. I would be very interested if you could tell me where this quote form Congressman Ron Paul came from, that is besides out of thin air.

new york times retard, not washington times.

This post has been edited by Too Exclusive: 09/01/05 2:26pm

[Too Exclusive]

all i have to say is read section 802 of the first patriot act. and then look at what they do to terrorists... especially in the second patriot act where "terrorists" ("Any action that endagers human life and is a violation of ANY state or federal law") can be put away for life and taken away to camps and shit.

[Johnzillah]

I have said it before.

Bush is a GDP (Good Damn President)

I hate to be the one who points this out but most of you who come in here talking about this and bitching about it are the very ones now who are in college with Liberal Professors with a GD agenda. It was like that when went and hasnt changed since.