Freedoms Lost Under George W. Bush - Page 3

**Pokerface** · 07-25-2005, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

If government tortures people under suspicion, then we revolt and start shooting cops on sight. How's that?

I took philosophy too. It was part of my double major. It's jacking off though in situations like this one.

That adds nothing to the discussion.
Please answer the question: Can a law be bad if it has yet to affect YOU personally in an adverse way?

**leejo** · 07-25-2005, 12:54 PM

You want me to concede to framing the discussion the way you want it framed and I'm not going to do that. Can a law be good even if it's a little scary? Like draino or a pistol? Is terrorism real even though you haven't been personally involved?

You ask questions, I can ask questions too. If you don't like the Patriot Act then call your congressman. Buy a Bush Is Stoopid t-shirt and chuckle with your friends about how clever you are. Whatever.

The fact is that the majority of Americans who vote must kinda like the Patriot Act or we wouldn't have sent so many Democrats packing last election. There is a pretty clear policy in this congress and presidency of being pretty tough on terror as this portion of the electorate defines it. Lots of you don't like it but that's kinda too bad isn't it? It's like when I have my taxes raised: suck it up.

SmokingTarpan · 07-25-2005, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

The fact is that the majority of Americans who vote must kinda like the Patriot Act or we wouldn't have sent so many Democrats packing last election. There is a pretty clear policy in this congress and presidency of being pretty tough on terror as this portion of the electorate defines it. Lots of you don't like it but that's kinda too bad isn't it? It's like when I have my taxes raised: suck it up.

Have you read the Patriot Act?

I haven't read the entire thing. While there are some possibly good aspects to it from the parts that I have read, there are definite tramplings of rights in here.

I ask if you've read it not to do the lame "omfg have u even read it!?!?!1" thing that's so often done on forums. Instead, I ask you because I want to see if you have. Then, I want your opinion on how much of the population has. How many Americans that voted for people that passed the Patriot Act actually know and understand it?

I don't believe that most people like the Patriot Act. I'm willing to bet real money that ten percent or less of the US citizenry has actually read the thing. Instead, I think that the people like the idea of being safe, and will blindly accept any sharp thing so long as it's wrapped in a cushy blanket of "For your own protection".

**RandomGuy** · 07-25-2005, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

That adds nothing to the discussion.
Please answer the question: Can a law be bad if it has yet to affect YOU personally in an adverse way?

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

You want me to concede to framing the discussion the way you want it framed and I'm not going to do that.

If you are unwilling to answer a simple yes/no question why bother with the discussion?

**leejo** · 07-25-2005, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

If you are unwilling to answer a simple yes/no question why bother posting?

Your question adds nothing to the discussion. Can a law be good even if it is a little scary? Yes or no.

**RandomGuy** · 07-25-2005, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Your question adds nothing to the discussion.

It was rhetorical so you don't need to answer, but it was intended to get you to answer pokerface's question rather that avoid it. If you were willing to answer his question I think it would add to the discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Can a law be good even if it is a little scary? Yes or no.

Yes

**leejo** · 07-25-2005, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

Have you read the Patriot Act?

No I have not. This is one of many laws I haven't read. I'm working on a number of books right now and reading laws hasn't made it on the list

Here's a snipped for those of you who may considering reading laws for fun:

Quote:

SEC. 212. EMERGENCY DISCLOSURE OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS TO PROTECT LIFE AND LIMB.

(a) DISCLOSURE OF CONTENTS-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 2702 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(A) by striking the section heading and inserting the following:

`Sec. 2702. Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or records';

(B) in subsection (a)--

(i) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking `and' at the end;

(ii) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking the period and inserting `; and'; and

(iii) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:

`(3) a provider of remote computing service or electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications covered by paragraph (1) or (2)) to any governmental entity.';

(C) in subsection (b), by striking `EXCEPTIONS- A person or entity' and inserting `EXCEPTIONS FOR DISCLOSURE OF COMMUNICATIONS- A provider described in subsection (a)';

(D) in subsection (b)(6)--

(i) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking `or';

(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and inserting `; or'; and

(iii) by adding after subparagraph (B) the following:

`(C) if the provider reasonably believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure of the information without delay.'; and

(E) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:

`(c) EXCEPTIONS FOR DISCLOSURE OF CUSTOMER RECORDS- A provider described in subsection (a) may divulge 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)(1) or (a)(2))--

`(1) as otherwise authorized in section 2703;

`(2) with the lawful consent of the customer or subscriber;

`(3) as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service;

`(4) to a governmental entity, if the provider reasonably believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person justifies disclosure of the information; or

`(5) to any person other than a governmental entity.'.

(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 2702 and inserting the following:

`2702. Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or records.'.

(b) REQUIREMENTS FOR GOVERNMENT ACCESS-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 2703 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(A) by striking the section heading and inserting the following:

`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.'.

**leejo** · 07-25-2005, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

It was rhetorical so you don't need to answer, but it was intended to get you to answer pokerface's question rather that avoid it.

I already declined to answer Pokerface's question and I said why. This law, like many controversial laws that don't bother liberals but do bother conservatives, will be challeneged in court and molded over time.

Does anyone really think that the judiciary is going to stand by and let the President and/or Congress take away their power? Ho ho! If a cop needs a warrant to look at my stuff, and Congress passes a law that says tomorrow they don't need warrants any more, then someone is going to challenge that and if they're lucky they will be in the 9th circuit's jurisdiction. I promise you that appellate court isn't going to be pro-Patriot Act.

**USN_Squid** · 07-25-2005, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

Nor have you posted that you've been terrorized recently.

Leejo already described the effect 9/11 had on many, many Americans. I personally lost thousands in the stalled Real Estate market for the 12 or so months following 9/11. The tech bubble was the uppercut and 9/11 was the hook.

**Pokerface** · 07-25-2005, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by USN_Squid

Leejo already described the effect 9/11 had on many, many Americans. I personally lost thousands in the stalled Real Estate market for the 12 or so months following 9/11. The tech bubble was the uppercut and 9/11 was the hook.

Those are effects of terrorism. The question posed by Magnum, like the one I've posed, is more direct.

I could certainly say "Look at the prosperous 227 years we had as a nation without a Patriot Act", but that's no counterargument to the question. Have you yourself been terrorized, before or since the Patriot Act?

saik0 · 07-25-2005, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

Have you read the Patriot Act?

I haven't read the entire thing. While there are some possibly good aspects to it from the parts that I have read, there are definite tramplings of rights in here.

I ask if you've read it not to do the lame "omfg have u even read it!?!?!1" thing that's so often done on forums. Instead, I ask you because I want to see if you have. Then, I want your opinion on how much of the population has. How many Americans that voted for people that passed the Patriot Act actually know and understand it?

I don't believe that most people like the Patriot Act. I'm willing to bet real money that ten percent or less of the US citizenry has actually read the thing. Instead, I think that the people like the idea of being safe, and will blindly accept any sharp thing so long as it's wrapped in a cushy blanket of "For your own protection".

Actually I have read it in it's entirety, and would have to estimate, with no information whatsoever, that somewhere around 0-2% have done the same.

What I've concluded from the USA Patriot Act is that it's a document that gives the government temporary power to quickly and efficiently fight a threat in wartime and crosses the line in a couple of places that should, in my opinion, be revisited. Yes, a lot of it is kinda creepy and it gives the government sweeping new powers to step on (but not quite trample) some of my liberties. However, the point brought up earlier isn't as empty as you all have made it out to be. I think if we could all look at all the specific cases where the Patriot Act has been used to prevent terrorists and the cases it has been misused against citizens you might make the same concession that I have: As long as the government is kept accountable for it's new and temporary powers and uses them to protect and not infringe on the rights of citizens then it's a necessary evil, even with it's flaws. Where I start to get concerned is when it's proposed that the Act is extended or be adopted indefinitely, with the following reasoning:

A. There will always be Terror
B. We must always be at war with it
C.Therefore, the govt. needs powers reserved for wartime all the time.

Doesn't that sound Orwellian to you?

Mateo · 07-25-2005, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magnum50

I'm curous... and be honest here... instead of just putting something you read here against our current president and the way things are today....

Can ANY American, that visits or post in this forum... reply if they have had any violations of there rights because of these "freedoms" that were removed... and then, your story, if willing to share...

(and I'm not talking about some local police officer stopping you or pulling you over for some ticket you don't think you deserve... I'm talking one of the many freedoms the main topic poster says has been removed.)

I know I haven't been effected, or anyone I know, one bit... and I do know that our government, which so many posters here think so little of, have done alot with those new investigative tools to stop and break up terrorist and criminal plans here. So, I wonder... what freedoms have YOU lost?

(just food for thought.)

All good points, but I think it is more of the "slippery slope" argument. Once people let these freedoms go unchallenged, what is next in the erosion of our rights?

**RandomGuy** · 07-25-2005, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

I already declined to answer Pokerface's question and I said why.

My point is "<not> framing the discussion the way you want it framed" isn't a good enough reason for you to not answer and still maintain your credibility. Say that the question was irrelevant if

Besides, the best way to convince someone of your point of view is to discuss things on their terms.

SmokingTarpan · 07-25-2005, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

If a cop needs a warrant to look at my stuff, and Congress passes a law that says tomorrow they don't need warrants any more, then someone is going to challenge that and if they're lucky they will be in the 9th circuit's jurisdiction. I promise you that appellate court isn't going to be pro-Patriot Act.

You're right, sometimes the appellate court decides that a part of the Patriot Act is unconstitutional.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Sep29.html

And it only took them 3 years. I'm sure no one's rights were violated during that time. Not that anyone would know, seeing as how the Patriot Act barred that information from release.

(Short version of the article: The Patriot Act gave the FBI the ability to subpoena business records without judiciary or public review. It also altered the law so that the subject of the subpoena need no longer be the subject of a foreign agent investigation, but instead deemed "relevant" by the FBI. This meant the FBI could subpoena records at their whim so long as they tacked on "foreign agent" to the report, and was allowed to bypass the part of the US legal system that requires a judge to issue a subpoena. Businesses were also required to remain silent about the records release.)

I'd rather not see a debate about my rights get held up for years in the courts, I'd rather see those rights upheld outright.

saik0 · 07-25-2005, 02:09 PM

Since we're doing the whole questions thing:

Should the govt have powers to make decisions quickly to aid in the prevention of terrorism?

Would'nt it be likely that these investigative and enforcing powers overlap some of the liberties of the citizens it was written to protect?

Is it possible for a government to use these powers as intended wihout abusing them?

Is all that such a horrific thing in wartime?

07-25-2005, 12:54 PM	#32 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Freedoms Lost Under George W. Bush You want me to concede to framing the discussion the way you want it framed and I'm not going to do that. Can a law be good even if it's a little scary? Like draino or a pistol? Is terrorism real even though you haven't been personally involved? You ask questions, I can ask questions too. If you don't like the Patriot Act then call your congressman. Buy a Bush Is Stoopid t-shirt and chuckle with your friends about how clever you are. Whatever. The fact is that the majority of Americans who vote must kinda like the Patriot Act or we wouldn't have sent so many Democrats packing last election. There is a pretty clear policy in this congress and presidency of being pretty tough on terror as this portion of the electorate defines it. Lots of you don't like it but that's kinda too bad isn't it? It's like when I have my taxes raised: suck it up.

07-25-2005, 02:09 PM	#45 (permalink)
saik0 Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Hollywood, FL Age: 23 Posts: 123	Re: Freedoms Lost Under George W. Bush Since we're doing the whole questions thing: Should the govt have powers to make decisions quickly to aid in the prevention of terrorism? Would'nt it be likely that these investigative and enforcing powers overlap some of the liberties of the citizens it was written to protect? Is it possible for a government to use these powers as intended wihout abusing them? Is all that such a horrific thing in wartime?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
"Senate Hearings on Bush, Now", by Carl Bernstein re:Impeachment	Eggplant999	The Sandbox	39	04-20-2006 10:55 AM
George Bush and Tony Blair GAY BAR video	ed_chiang11	The Sandbox	6	03-26-2006 03:58 PM
2nd Annual +SD Invitational Tourney	AsRock	Ghost Recon - General Discussion	27	08-24-2005 12:40 PM
Putin endorses Bush	Apophis	The Sandbox	6	10-19-2004 08:54 AM
Bush: The missing years	leejo	The Sandbox	2	08-03-2004 03:37 PM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links