US Patriot Act

[Buddhist]

There is a famous quote said in the earlier half of the 20th century... I believe it applies to those who endorsed the patriot act.


"That is too much power for any bad man to have and any good man to want."

Americans subtly lost some of the delicate freedoms fought so hard for in the past 200 years. Millions of people who have fought for this country and died, who fought for this country and its principles of freedom, lost the long battle on 9/11 when 19 terrorists succeded in terrorizing our leaders into submission. Now, with the unfortunate misguided death of 3,000, we have erased the efforts and sacrifice of millions of Americans.

This to me is the most tragic fact. That even in death the unfortunate victims of 9/11 are victimized into a tool against freedom, by none other then our own leaders.

-M.T.O

 

[NogginBoink]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: SlowSS

Originally posted by: Zakath15<br
Doesn't matter whether or not you're involved in something illegal, you should still have the right to privacy in your personal communications.

How do you suppose that government is going to monitor every person in the USA with e-mail?

Some of these peeps have 4 or more e-mail accounts.

I just don't see government is capable of doing it. They have to pick and choose their targets

based on their suspision/information. Don't forget we still have bill of rights and constitution

to protect us if we were wronged by the govenment.

It still doesn't matter if it's immediately "feasible", it should never even be considered.

Freedom is not retroactive.

Amen!

The patriot act scares me. Ashcroft terrifies me. I'd gladly give up the ability to track terrorists to preserve the liberties of freedom from government spying on it citizens.

 

[Moonbeam]

An excellent article by Fisk.

Ironic that the same people who will give away their freedoms here support a government that supports a government that is torturing its citizens there and teaching us their tricks.

 

[hdeck]

Originally posted by: Soybomb

Originally posted by: axiom
Did any of you even read the bill? Christ, stop crying about it until you read the bill. Frankly I'm surprised that such smart people managed to post 'totalitarian" in this thread. Or maybe I am exaggerating when I say 'smart' people.

Read the bill.

So have you read the bill or are you just assuming the government is too nice to do such a thing? I'm about to leave but if you claim you've read it and those sections aren't there I will post how to find the relevant sections tonight.

this bill is over 300 pages long!! most of it is written ambigously as well. all you have to do is check out eff's website (posted on pg1 of thread) to see what the government can now do.

 

[Darein]

Originally posted by: hdeck

Originally posted by: Soybomb

Originally posted by: axiom
Did any of you even read the bill? Christ, stop crying about it until you read the bill. Frankly I'm surprised that such smart people managed to post 'totalitarian" in this thread. Or maybe I am exaggerating when I say 'smart' people.

Read the bill.

So have you read the bill or are you just assuming the government is too nice to do such a thing? I'm about to leave but if you claim you've read it and those sections aren't there I will post how to find the relevant sections tonight.

this bill is over 300 pages long!! most of it is written ambigously as well. all you have to do is check out eff's website (posted on pg1 of thread) to see what the government can now do.

Ack, 300 pages. Thats a good deterent to keep me from reading it all.

 

[Ultima]

wtf? After reading this and the RIAA thread I think I'll stay in Canada. The US is starting to remind me a bit too much of 1984.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Ultima
wtf? After reading this and the RIAA thread I think I'll stay in Canada. The US is starting to remind me a bit too much of 1984.

That would never happen here. Or at least I seriously doubt it. The constitution is too well constructed. It balances ambition of each branch against each other. Think England in the 1600s. ALthough France and Prussia were powerful Authoritarian (also called Absolutist) states, English absolutism never suceeded because the precident for balancing power had been set. The same goes for America. There is too much of a precident for freedom.

 

[hdeck]

Originally posted by: axiom

Originally posted by: Soybomb

Originally posted by: axiom
Did any of you even read the bill? Christ, stop crying about it until you read the bill. Frankly I'm surprised that such smart people managed to post 'totalitarian" in this thread. Or maybe I am exaggerating when I say 'smart' people.

Read the bill.

So have you read the bill or are you just assuming the government is too nice to do such a thing? I'm about to leave but if you claim you've read it and those sections aren't there I will post how to find the relevant sections tonight.

On the contrary, I cannot show you something that doesn't exist. You on the otherhand can show us all where it says the government can hack into your computer, read your email, etc, blah blah.

All I am asking is that you read the bill on your own. Do not take filtered versions from focus groups like the EFF. You should read the entire bill if you wish to critique it and honestly be qualified to state was the bill says.

you should read the bill if you intend to defend it. there is nothing wrong with reading "filtered" versions from the EFF. they flat out say what the bill entails. it didn't take them 342 pages to do it either.

That would never happen here. Or at least I seriously doubt it. The constitution is too well constructed. It balances ambition of each branch against each other. Think England in the 1600s. ALthough France and Prussia were powerful Authoritarian (also called Absolutist) states, English absolutism never suceeded because the precident for balancing power had been set. The same goes for America. There is too much of a precident for freedom.

maybe you should read some of the stuff it says. it undermines checks and balances. it allows the police to wire tap any phone call. they can take voice mails. they can monitor where you search online, what peer to peer software you use, what you've downloaded, etc. it is VERY much like 1984.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
That would never happen here. Or at least I seriously doubt it. The constitution is too well constructed. It balances ambition of each branch against each other.

Yeah? Then doubt this :disgust:

FBI may have aided Pentagon data project

Wednesday, January 22, 2003 Posted: 11:53 AM EST (1653 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Possible FBI involvement in a high-tech Pentagon project that sifts through Americans' personal information raises new concerns about privacy and civil liberties, Sen. Charles Grassley said Tuesday.

The Defense Department's inspector general, Joseph Schmitz, told Grassley, R-Iowa, in a letter that the FBI was working on a memorandum of understanding with the Pentagon "for possible experimentation" with the data-mining project.

(Article continues)

 

[UltraQuiet]

All I am asking is that you read the bill on your own. Do not take filtered versions from focus groups like the EFF. You should read the entire bill if you wish to critique it and honestly be qualified to state was the bill says.

I have been encouraging the people here to do that for over a year now. It does no good. They can't be troubled to read for themselves and are content to let other people think for them and tell them what their opinion should be. It's really very sad and at the same time very funny because these same people will call you a sheep if you try to explain or defend something the .gov is doing.

 

[NogginBoink]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Ultima
wtf? After reading this and the RIAA thread I think I'll stay in Canada. The US is starting to remind me a bit too much of 1984.

That would never happen here. Or at least I seriously doubt it. The constitution is too well constructed. It balances ambition of each branch against each other. Think England in the 1600s. ALthough France and Prussia were powerful Authoritarian (also called Absolutist) states, English absolutism never suceeded because the precident for balancing power had been set. The same goes for America. There is too much of a precident for freedom.

I disagree.

The part of the patriot act that scares me is that so much of the bill's provisions are exempt from judicial scrutiny.

If the judicial were given more oversight over people like, say, Ashcroft and his band of cronies, I wouldn't be nearly as wary as I am. Personally, I think 1984 is exactly where we're headed.

 

[nord1899]

As good old Benjamin Franklin once said.

Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

All I am asking is that you read the bill on your own. Do not take filtered versions from focus groups like the EFF. You should read the entire bill if you wish to critique it and honestly be qualified to state was the bill says.

I have been encouraging the people here to do that for over a year now. It does no good. They can't be troubled to read for themselves and are content to let other people think for them and tell them what their opinion should be. It's really very sad and at the same time very funny because these same people will call you a sheep if you try to explain or defend something the .gov is doing.

While there is some indication that some of the people in this thread have read at least part of the bill, I see no reason to believe either of you have yet.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: axiom
flavio: What does your question have to do with the criticism laid out by people in this thread? How does it change our effectiveness if we have or have not read the bill?

People in this thread have criticized the bill for specifically giving the government more access to its citizens without the consent of the citizens. Why would one have to read the bill to ask these people to back up their claims with quotes from the bill?

Let's not stray from the topic at hand.

How am I straying from the topic? ...and I didn't even ask a question.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

All I am asking is that you read the bill on your own. Do not take filtered versions from focus groups like the EFF. You should read the entire bill if you wish to critique it and honestly be qualified to state was the bill says.

I have been encouraging the people here to do that for over a year now. It does no good. They can't be troubled to read for themselves and are content to let other people think for them and tell them what their opinion should be. It's really very sad and at the same time very funny because these same people will call you a sheep if you try to explain or defend something the .gov is doing.

While there is some indication that some of the people in this thread have read at least part of the bill, I see no reason to believe either of you have yet.

I have every indication that your head is stuck so far up your ass that the only thing you could possibly "see" is your tonsils.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Buddhist
There is a famous quote said in the earlier half of the 20th century... I believe it applies to those who endorsed the patriot act.


"That is too much power for any bad man to have and any good man to want."

Americans subtly lost some of the delicate freedoms fought so hard for in the past 200 years. Millions of people who have fought for this country and died, who fought for this country and its principles of freedom, lost the long battle on 9/11 when 19 terrorists succeded in terrorizing our leaders into submission. Now, with the unfortunate misguided death of 3,000, we have erased the efforts and sacrifice of millions of Americans.

This to me is the most tragic fact. That even in death the unfortunate victims of 9/11 are victimized into a tool against freedom, by none other then our own leaders.

-M.T.O

I agree to a point. You know what I wanted the US to do after the terrorist attacks on the WTC? Nothing. No reaction was going to bring those lives back. No reaction, except hightened vigilence which we all possess now, was going to make us any safer...not even the Patriot Act. The same liberties that make us so great are the same liberties that make us vulnerable and I, personally, am willing to accept that risk. Maintaining all those liberties in their same form after the attack would have been the greatest slap in the face to those who perpetrated the attacks and all those who think like them.

But, as Benjamin Martin said, we don't always have the luxury of principles...not when people's lives are in your hands. I'm willing to turn the other cheek when somebody strikes me. I'm not willing to turn the other cheek when somebody strikes my wife or my child. If I have to enforce a curfew on my kids to help make sure their safe, then I'm willing to take away their liberty to stay out as late as they want. Our elected leaders are doing what they feel is right and reacting like a protective parent. If, down the road, not hypothetically, we don't like it, then we elect new leaders who do away with their rules, but you can't criticize the reason behind their decision. You think the government gives a sh*t what websites you visit? Think they want to read your boring emails? Believe it or not, they don't.

 

[Soybomb]

On the contrary, I cannot show you something that doesn't exist. You on the otherhand can show us all where it says the government can hack into your computer, read your email, etc, blah blah.

What? So if I show you that such passages exist in the bill isn't the point proven? Thats what gives the government their power, not what doesn't exist. Maybe I'm missing the point, but I completely miss your logic.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: Dari
I read Robert Fisk every once in a while. Good columnist. I came upon this tidbit about the US Patriot act:

Indeed, many Americans don't even know what the chilling acronym of the "US Patriot Act" even stands for. "Patriot" is not a reference to patriotism. The name stands for the "United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act". America's $200m (£125m) "Total Awareness Programme" will permit the US government to monitor citizens' e-mail and internet activity and collect data on the movement of all Americans. And although we have not been told about this by our journalists, the US administration is now pestering European governments for the contents of their own citizens' data files. The most recent ? and most preposterous ? of these claims came in a US demand for access to the computer records of the French national airline, Air France, so that it could "profile" thousands of its passengers. All this is beyond the wildest dreams of Saddam and the Dear Leader Kim.

Can anyone confirm this?

link

He left out the part that gives the President authorization to have anyone killed on his say-so. And no, I'm not kidding. If you want to see something really creepy, have a look at the Total Awareness Program emblem image

Hagbard, can you prove that's the official emblem by showing another site with the same exact emblem in reference to the Total Awareness Program?

When I first read the article to which the emblem was attacted, I went straight over to the Total Information Awareness Program and varified that it was there. Now, they've removed it (for obvious reasons). If you run a search, you'll find many references to the emblem and how stupid it was for them to adopt it. But given the person behind this "department" it isn't suprising.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

All I am asking is that you read the bill on your own. Do not take filtered versions from focus groups like the EFF. You should read the entire bill if you wish to critique it and honestly be qualified to state was the bill says.

I have been encouraging the people here to do that for over a year now. It does no good. They can't be troubled to read for themselves and are content to let other people think for them and tell them what their opinion should be. It's really very sad and at the same time very funny because these same people will call you a sheep if you try to explain or defend something the .gov is doing.

While there is some indication that some of the people in this thread have read at least part of the bill, I see no reason to believe either of you have yet.

I have every indication that your head is stuck so far up your ass that the only thing you could possibly "see" is your tonsils.

More personal insults from Sohmer. Childish, but not surprising. How about trying something relevant next time? ...Or would you prefer trading some "Your momma" insults? I could be up for that if you're not into meaningful material.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Ultima
wtf? After reading this and the RIAA thread I think I'll stay in Canada. The US is starting to remind me a bit too much of 1984.

That would never happen here. Or at least I seriously doubt it. The constitution is too well constructed. It balances ambition of each branch against each other. Think England in the 1600s. ALthough France and Prussia were powerful Authoritarian (also called Absolutist) states, English absolutism never suceeded because the precident for balancing power had been set. The same goes for America. There is too much of a precident for freedom.

But look at the P.A.T.R.I.O.T act. Obviously Americans respond better to rhetoric than logic.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

All I am asking is that you read the bill on your own. Do not take filtered versions from focus groups like the EFF. You should read the entire bill if you wish to critique it and honestly be qualified to state was the bill says.

I have been encouraging the people here to do that for over a year now. It does no good. They can't be troubled to read for themselves and are content to let other people think for them and tell them what their opinion should be. It's really very sad and at the same time very funny because these same people will call you a sheep if you try to explain or defend something the .gov is doing.

While there is some indication that some of the people in this thread have read at least part of the bill, I see no reason to believe either of you have yet.

I have every indication that your head is stuck so far up your ass that the only thing you could possibly "see" is your tonsils.

More personal insults from Sohmer. Childish, but not surprising. How about trying something relevant next time? ...Or would you prefer trading some "Your momma" insults? I could be up for that if you're not into meaningful material.

I'll be more than happy to try to dumb my posts down to that level if you're having trouble keeping up.

 

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Jellomancer
If you hate America, move to Iraq!

This country is turning more into Iraq everyday. But of course you're just too blind to recognize it.

Yeah, you've been there right? The similarities are astounding. In fact, if you went to sleep in the U.S. and woke up in Iraq, you'd probably not even know you were outconus. Never mind the armed soldiers at the bus stops...

And yes, I'm qualified to taunt that. Dubai, Bahrain, UAE. Close enough for me. Been there done that and, well yes - I have the t-shirt.

 

[hdeck]

axiom: a few sections from the patriot act...

SEC. 201. AUTHORITY TO INTERCEPT WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO TERRORISM.

Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by redesignating paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 434(2) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132; 110 Stat. 1274), as paragraph (r); and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 201(3) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-565), the following new paragraph:

`(q) any criminal violation of section 229 (relating to chemical weapons); or sections 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332d, 2339A, or 2339B of this title (relating to terrorism); o

SEC. 202. AUTHORITY TO INTERCEPT WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE OFFENSES.

Section 2516(1)(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `and section 1341 (relating to mail fraud),' and inserting `section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), a felony violation of section 1030 (relating to computer fraud and abuse),'.

SEC. 206. ROVING SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978.

Section 105(c)(2)(B) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805(c)(2)(B)) is amended by inserting `, or in circumstances where the Court finds that the actions of the target of the application may have the effect of thwarting the identification of a specified person, such other persons,' after `specified person'.

SEC. 209. SEIZURE OF VOICE-MAIL MESSAGES PURSUANT TO WARRANTS.

Title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in section 2510--

(A) in paragraph (1), by striking beginning with `and such' and all that follows through `communication'; and

(B) in paragraph (14), by inserting `wire or' after `transmission of'; and

(2) in subsections (a) and (b) of section 2703--

(A) by striking `CONTENTS OF ELECTRONIC' and inserting `CONTENTS OF WIRE OR ELECTRONIC' each place it appears;

(B) by striking `contents of an electronic' and inserting `contents of a wire or electronic' each place it appears; and

(C) by striking `any electronic' and inserting `any wire or electronic' each place it appears.

Sec. 2703. Required disclosure of customer communications or records';

(B) in subsection (c) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);

(C) in subsection (c)(1)--

(i) by striking `(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service may' and inserting `A governmental entity may require a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service to';

(ii) by striking `covered by subsection (a) or (b) of this section) to any person other than a governmental entity.

`(B) A provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service shall disclose a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications covered by subsection (a) or (b) of this section) to a governmental entity' and inserting `)';

(iii) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as paragraph (2);

(iv) by redesignating clauses (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) as subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D), respectively;

(v) in subparagraph (D) (as redesignated) by striking the period and inserting `; or'; and

(vi) by inserting after subparagraph (D) (as redesignated) the following:

`(E) seeks information under paragraph (2).'; and

(D) in paragraph (2) (as redesignated) by striking `subparagraph (B)' and insert `paragraph (1)'.

(2) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT- The table of sections for chapter 121 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to section 2703 and inserting the following:

`2703. Required disclosure of customer communications or records.'.

SEC. 215. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT.

Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended by striking sections 501 through 503 and inserting the following: (it goes on, don't want to take up too much space)

I think that's good enough for now. Got that off the Senate's website.

 

[Howard]

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety...

 

[Howard]

He also said this:

Keep your eyes wide open before marriage, half shut afterwards.

What a brilliant man.