Conservatives And Liberals Unite In Opposition To Patriot II

They all suck and can't keep anyone safe, get that though your head. They're having a blast incrementally ruining a free coutry.

Okay, I'll bite on this one, too. What specific freedoms do you think you have lost in your personal life since enactment of the first Patroit Act, and in what specific respects are you less safe today then you were on, say, September 10, 2001 as a result of the passage of that Act?

Being boisterous and loud (ie hysterical) has worked for Liddy, Savage, Boortz and others on the right hand side of the aisle. People can't get worked up about anything delivered in flat monotones. Ever been to an evangelical church service?

What I'm getting at is that not all people respond to reasoned, quiet input. They snooze through it. Sometimes a slap up-side-the-head is in order.

I'm glad they launched a test balloon before legislating this attack on the BOR. It illustrates their thinking, if nothing else.

What specific freedoms do you think you have lost in your personal life since enactment of the first Patroit Act, and in what specific respects are you less safe today then you were on, say, September 10, 2001 as a result of the passage of that Act?

I'll be anxious to read any responses you get to this excellent question.

I've asked it at least 50 times in the last 15 months, and never get an answer.

Being boisterous and loud (ie hysterical) has worked for Liddy, Savage, Boortz and others on the right hand side of the aisle. People can't get worked up about anything delivered in flat monotones. Ever been to an evangelical church service?

I don't deny this, but this type of motivation a quick fix at best and doesn't last very long. If, a few hours or days later, they cannot see through all the Jedi mind tricks -- the falsehoods, the fallacious reasoning, the appeals to emotion rather than facts -- that the liberals play on people, their euthoric emotional state will be quickly replaced by confusion, doubt, and (eventually) frustration. That's a major reason why I think Rush Limbaugh is so effective. He explains these tricks, and does so in an entertaining manner that keeps his audience interested.

This is a rumor that started on D.U., somehow got posted on PBS, and was pulled because it was a "prank" of some sort. This is total bull. I'm actually shocked to see it posted here.

"What specific freedoms do you think you have lost in your personal life since enactment of the first Patroit Act, and in what specific respects are you less safe today then you were on, say, September 10, 2001 as a result of the passage of that Act?"
I'll be anxious to read any responses you get to this excellent question.

I've asked it at least 50 times in the last 15 months, and never get an answer.

That's because I suspect that the vast majority of the good people who post here are not terrorists or criminals. :) I certainly have not lost one shred of my personal freedom, and to the extent that the Patriot Act is helping us track down and capture (or kill) terrorists, I'm that much safer than I otherwise would have been.

If you had paid attention to the federal authorities of late, they have frequently told us that further terrorist attacks of tremendous proportions are "inevitable," and that "there is nothing we can do to prevent them." You know they have frequently said this, so it is difficult to feel safer as a result of this law. Colleen Rowley has been writing about this to her superiors at the FBI again, as well, stating that nothing has really changed. So, that question has been answered.

As to the second, I suggest you study St. Thomas Aquinas on "Potency and Actuality." In its application to citizens of the United States, the "Patriot" Act is a potency not yet actualized. It is the potency that is objectionable. The defintion of "terrorist" is understood by Americans to mean irregular foreign enemies who bomb, hijack, assassinate, take hostages, etc. To the Patriot Act, "terrorist" has a whole new convulted meaning so that the term can be applied to U.S. Citizens who may, or may not, be guilty of this or that State law, or who may, or may not, be engaged in some activity that "APPEARS" to be "dangerous to human life." "Appears" is a term that is alien to Anglo-American legal philosophy. Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is the traditional measurement.

We had a 1978 Anti-Terrorism law that provided enough legal recourse to the FBI's Minneapolis Field Office to almost break 9/11 before it happened. Passing paper laws does nothing to solve problems. Pro-active, Constitutional intelligence gathering and investigative techniques CAN accomplish much. Let's go back to the laws we had, which were sufficient, and do something about bureaucrats who, in the words of Rowley, "sabotage" the efforts of those trying to defend us.

Privacy issues aside, how about the freedom from illegal search and siezure? They can break into your house and take things without informing you they were even there.

During the sniper hunt, they were hassling legal rifle owners, and doing ballistic checks on their their rifles without any probable cause.

People are being interrogated in airports for getting mouthy with security there. Being POed doesn't make you a terrorist, so what's up with that?

I think the war footing is dangerous for Liberty.

Not to mention these are the same people who were behind the atrocities of Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Have the good American citizens forgotten that more power given to those who have abused it can only lead to DISASTER??!!??

Those of you who are Bush supporters and believe these unconstitutional actions by the government are justified to fight terrorism, just imagine -if you will - these same powers in the hands of Hillary Clinton.

============================================

I will respectfully disagree with the criticism of Patriot II on the basis that Hillary Clinton might possess the power. God forbid that she should get back to the White House, but whether Patriot II is law would not matter to her. She would issue Presidential Decision Directives that would be the law. Who would stop her? Would 2/3 of the Senate vote to convict in an impeachment trial? No, they wouldn't. Her evil husband set the standard. No president will ever be convicted by the Senate unless one party has 67 members. So, Patriot II would not matter. The law would be what she said it was.

If you had paid attention to the federal authorities of late, they have frequently told us that further terrorist attacks of tremendous proportions are "inevitable," and that "there is nothing we can do to prevent them." You know they have frequently said this, so it is difficult to feel safer as a result of this law.

The law doesn't make me feel safer, but knowing that scumbag terrorists can be thrown in a dark cell where they can't rant and rave to their associates is very comforting.

Colleen Rowley has been writing about this to her superiors at the FBI again, as well, stating that nothing has really changed. So, that question has been answered.

Sorry, but "Person of the Year" Colleen Rowley is a grandstander who thinks she gets 30 minutes of fame. Her letter got all of the attention it deserved, which was not very much.

The "potency" of PAI has been to get lots of rats off the street, dangerous men who had designs on this country. That's a very good thing.

I don't buy the "slippery slope" argument, but it's all you've got, so I'm not surprised you'd use it.

And there is the entire thrust of the Administration after 9/11, which was to gather more information on AMERICAN CITIZENS, as opposed to the terrorist groups that Louis Freeh told the Senate Judiciary Committee were not a threat to the United States, but were only "fund raising." That was in 1998. Now the groups he mentioned, such as Hezzbollah and Hamas are reportedly threatening us.

Government at first stated that they had "no information" that would lead them to believe 9/11 was about to happen, but when reports came out that there was reason to anticipate such an attack, the cry was about "information OVERLOAD." Well, they seem to want MORE information overload through database growing:'Honest, We're the Good Guys' By Michelle Delio
Story location: http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,58041,00.html

02:00 AM Mar. 14, 2003 PT

WASHINGTON -- American businesses feel a little like a rope that's being used in a tug of war between privacy and patriotism.

Their customers want the personal information that businesses collect to be kept private, but the government wants access to some of that data for use in various homeland security plans.

So what's a company to do? That's the question being asked this week at the Privacy & American Business' ninth annual national conference in Washington.

Organizers said that the focus of this year's conference, "managing the privacy revolution," reflects businesses' deep concern over how to enhance homeland security while not surrendering customer privacy. Besides business people, plenty of government officials, privacy advocates and corporate privacy workers are on hand.

"As privacy advocates and civil liberties groups gear up to challenge new government initiatives to access consumer information in business files, companies are seeking guidance on how to support legitimate government needs, but also protect legitimate privacy interests," said Dr. Alan Westin, P&AB's president.

Admiral James Loy, the Department of Transportation's undersecretary of security, addressed attendees on Thursday on the sort of data the government wants access to, and what the government wants to do with it.

Loy took pains to assure his audience that privacy is one of the guiding principles behind government measures like the controversial CAPPS II system.

CAPPS II, now being tested by Delta Airlines, runs background checks on all airline passengers when they book a ticket, including checking credit reports, banking and criminal records.

"It is a limited system carefully designed to safeguard the privacy rights of Americans," Loy said. "Few air passengers will be subjected to any more scrutiny than they are right now."

Loy also sought to clarify some questions about CAPPS II, saying that those with credit problems, overdrawn bank accounts or parking tickets would not suffer under the new system.

But many of the privacy advocates attending the conference weren't mollified.

Many were cheered by the news that the Wyden amendment to S. 165 (the Air Cargo Security Act) had been approved by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation on Thursday.

The amendment, proposed by Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden, requires the Department of Homeland Security to answer key questions about CAPPS II.

"The (Transportation Security Administration) has yet to explain how the system will work, what databases it will access, what proof TSA has that the program will be effective, or who will be in charge of performing the assessments used to determine passengers' threat potentials," said Jerry Berman of the Center for Democracy and Technology.

Also under heavy discussion are the demands of the Patriot Act, passed shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11.

Some provisions of the act require banks, credit unions and other financial services providers to verify the identities of those opening accounts, and report any suspicious activity to government officials in order to thwart international money laundering and financial support of terrorists.

"My job has become a juggling act that gets more complex every day," said a privacy officer for a Manhattan bank who spoke on condition of anonymity. "It's a challenge to determine what a 'legally' suspicious activity is and what isn't. The government guidelines are a little vague."

Conference attendees were presented with a thick book, P&AB’s Guide to Homeland Security Information Requirements, intended to help them walk that fine line between pleasing both the government and their customers.

The guide examines the new anti-terror laws and how they are being administered, summarizes the concerns of civil liberties and consumer advocates about the scope of these demands on business, and the privacy safeguards that businesses should put in place.

Software to help businesses comply with privacy laws and government demands is also on display at the conference.

Suncoast Software is demonstrating the newest version of its Web Quality Central software, which monitors networks to ensure privacy policies are being complied with, and that legal obligations are also being met.

"Privacy compliance is now such a large issue for many business and government organizations," said Paul Saunders, president of Suncoast. "Many law firms who specialize in class-action suits see policy non-compliance as a lucrative growth area."

Now, just how nimble can an operation be when it wants to know everthing, including, according to some articles, THE DNA COMPOSITION, of a farmer named Gump in Iowa, when the threat is supposedly coming from Muslim terrorists operating overseas? How is all of this data gathering on Americans, and the management of an elephantine database, going to help this government do its job any more efficiently? We have FBI checks on what people read in libraries, but how is that supposed to stop Al Qaeda?

The Patriot Act, and the other moves toward total surveillance of the entire population (Total Information Awareness--They are still working on it) constitute an unwarranted intrusion on the victims of 9/11: The law-abiding and loyal citizens of the United States. We are not the enemy. Whoever funded and helped Al Qaeda is, and I already informed you about who that was: The Chief of Pakistani Intelligence.

You'll find out when the next Democrat is elected. That might be sooner than you think, too.

People are being interrogated in airports for getting mouthy with security there. Being POed doesn't make you a terrorist, so what's up with that?

On the contrary, seeing a smart ass get his comeuppance because he resents having to go through what the rest of us schlubs have to go through is extremely satisfying to us schlubs.

I think the war footing is dangerous for Liberty.

Not fighting a war on terrorism is dangerous for human life.

Go get em, dude! Nice post! :^P

You'll find out when the next Democrat is elected.

And, some day, we'll be dead.

I don't do "chicken little" either.

An 89 year old Texan, who had passed through security twice in one day, was aggravated at the third pass through. While the security man was searching through his billfold (again) he muttered, " You think there's a rifle in there?"

He was promptly arrested and interrogated by the airport officials. I don't recall if he was formally charged or released, but I suspect he was in trouble or it wouldn't have made the news. I think that is a bad thing, that's all. They could make allowances for stress and old age.

They could make allowances for stress and old age.

And, at the age of 89, this old coot learned a valuable lesson.

Don't joke about guns in an airport.

Hahaha! You are cold.. :^)

TO ALL: There you have it. The First Amendment is dead as a hammer.

Privacy issues aside, how about the freedom from illegal search and siezure? They can break into your house and take things without informing you they were even there.

I'm highly skeptical that this is the case, but my question was whether it has ever actually happened to you or anyone else you know? It hasn't happened to me or anyone else I know.

My understanding is that it isn't the case that they can just search and never tell you. My understanding is that they have to get a very special warrant, and even then they can keep the fact of the search hidden from you only for a few days. In fact, I think the government had this power even before the Patriot Act, and the law merely extended the delay period (which was only a few days) for a few more additional days. I could be wrong about this, but that's my recollection -- if anyone knows better, please correct me.

If so, such a procedure might be unreasonable for you and me (in which case the special warrant shouldn't be issued in the first place), but eminently reasonable for suspected terrorists and their equivalents.