Hey isn't that the super-secret photo of Socks greeting Hillery?
Posted on 12/29/2003 10:21:03 AM PST by Semper Paratus
Thank you !
I remember when Freepers didn't recite ACLU propaganda.
Section 802 also requires as part of the definition of terrorism, that the illegal dangerous act must also appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;
How does speeding qualify as terrorism??
Hey isn't that the super-secret photo of Socks greeting Hillery?
If you don't count Homeland Security and DOD then discretionary spending in 2002 as a percentage of GDP was about 3.3% for Bush. Clinton's was about 3.2%.
However, the GDP was flat in recessionary 2002 thanks to Clinton.
Realistically, your above statement is wrong.
We have one..our 5th line of defense.
We call her Fifth Element.
If they can get past the other four, she's there to greet 'em.
Number six is a real surprise :)
Nice opinion but short on supporting facts.
What specifically about the Patriot Act concern him?
Section 802 defines terrorism as anything that endagers human life and is a violation of law, so now speeding qualifies as "terrorism" under the law.
Actually, Section 802 outlines that as ONE part of THREE to define domestic terrorism. The more complete text is:
5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
`(B) appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.
So, using the more complete document, SPEEDING is not a violation of the act nor can it be considered anything but speeding unless you were planning mass destruction...like speeding into a building or a large group of people.
The sneak and peak provisions, expanded power of gov't to get information without a warrant, reduced accountability to Congress, etc....
Nat Hentoff and James Bovard have written far more detailed and damning books about the Patriot Act.
Fine but I'm not talking with Hentoff nor Bovard. What specifically in the "sneak n peak" provisions concern you? Furthermore, do you disagree with the idea that every electronic eavesdropping measure to be employed by the FBI, CIA, etc. should require a warrant?
If so, what are the ramifications to the effort to stop terrorism in this country?
Has there been any activity which has supported his concern?
Well, the feds said they would use the Act for only "terrorism" but have since used it for other non-terrorism cases. 3 States and over 200 cities (actually I think it's more like 400) are so concerned that they've passed resolutions against it.
What other "non-terrorism" cases have used the Patriot Act?
3 states and 200 cities passed resolutions to do what? Furthermore, I thought you were against unnecessary government bureaucracy? Aren't these resolutions exactly that?
Securing borders? Great idea. How? How much will it cost? Who will do it? What time frame?
Why does it matter? Cost is no barrier to this adminstration.
It would certainly cost less than a new prescription drug benefit, or funding the United Nations, or new spending on federal education.
In the frame of "intelligent discussion" it does matter. In the frame of "reasonable" it does. In the case of criticism without being constructive, it does.
Cost is a barrier to this administration as it is to every administration. Furthermore, since you are an advocate of closed borders, certainly you wouldn't mind if the administration just decided to make it so and spend billions doing so, right?
While I would like to believe it would cost less to do so, I'd like to see some numbers.
You want intelligent discussion. You blast FR for no longer having debate, discussion, etc. Yet, when I posed questions to you, you answered them with minimal and in some cases, incomplete information, unsupported opinion, and a "why does it matter?"
Sometimes, THAT is perceived, rightly so, as whining.
Perhaps a paper trail to the terrorists...
Due to limited numbers of marshalls and the difficulty of coordinating armed US officers' entry into foreign countries, Federal Air Marshalls aboard international flights were a rarity. Seems to be changing ASAP! Several other countries air carriers have been flying "armed" into the US for years (well before 9/11).
Our cat looks zakly like this guy..
and he has exactly the same attitude.
I'm sorry. Is it not self-evident that the armed citizen isn't particularly concerned if the hijacker has a gun?
I will allow that a person with a gun might have made a difference on the planes but if people were allowed guns on planes, hijackers would have them also.
"Might have made a difference" is unnecessarily vague. Armed passengers would have made a difference because the unknowns would have made the highly coordinated planning of the attack impossible.
The way to deal with terrorists is multipronged but intel seems to be the overarching important one. We are trying to do that. Now in spite of all the criping about Homeland Security, the stupidity of Tom Ridge, etc,,there have been no attacks in this country in two years and you can bet your bippy it wasn't because the terrorists were lounging around on the net.
Point granted, but you must admit terrorists have an affinity for "soft" targets. Staging grandiose attacks is impossible if you don't know what's soft and what isn't.
Questioning is one thing. Attacking the administration incessantly for the sake of attacking it is quite another.
So that justifies anything the federal gov't did?
By the same token, during the Cold War, would it have been appropriate for the gov't to attempt to suspend the Bill of Rights?
On a side note, it will be interesting to see how many people here still use the "we're at war" retort to justify the actions of the government when someone with a "D" by their name is president.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.