CingularDuality

The US legal system has never required a judge to issue a subpoena. Where'd you get that idea? I can issue a subpoena to any business that I want to.

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

USN_Squid

So, what are your requirements for being terrorized? Do I have to witness a bombing? Do I have to have shrapnel woulds? Or can I just know someone who had that kind of experience? What if I just feel the economic impact the terrorism had on our Country? Does crying for my Country while watching people dive out of the Twin Towers count?

And therefore the terrorism worked, to some extent.

SmokingTarpan

Very good point, I like it. I've already conceded that some parts of the Patriot Act are good (from the bits that I have read, that is). Some, however, most definitely need to be re-tooled so that they aren't abused.

My worry is definitely along the same lines. I don't want to see the government decide to see how far they can push the line due to the fact that certain things are allowed in the Act. That worry is compounded by the fact that the public won't raise a general ruckus about it until it's probably too late. Hell, just the definition of terrorism in the USA Act (adopted into the Patriot Act) is pretty far-reaching:

1. It intimidates or coerces the government or civil population
2. It breaks criminal laws
3. It endangers human life.

I'm pretty sure all three categories can be applied to almost all crimes. That means the Patriot Act has the possibility of being applied to lots of other stuff, but people don't realize it.

__________________

[squadl]
"I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

Rahn

leejo, as of now I don't have a huge problem with the PA but I don't like giving my government more power, no matter how long or what the reason.

Give them an inch and they'll try to take a mile. (Didn't they add a few more "tools" for government agencies to use this time around?)

I also think this is just a curtain to pull down to make it seem as if the government is trying to do something. We're fighting them in their land so we don't have to fight them here, so why make laws to "prosecute and find" these people?

Now, I know most of what your all going to say as I've talked about this a lot, it's just that those are my feelings towards this "protective measure". I don't think it's needed and I think there are much better ways to go about it without making new laws and granting certain agencies new power.

Also, Magnum, not many people may be victims of the PA now but never the less, it's a foot hold to begin to start prosecuting people you know. Look into your history books, I know the Hitler reference would come to some people's mind but I try to stay away from the comparison of him and anyone else simply because it's like comparing t-ball playing kids to MLB players.

__________________
I'm not the Killer Man...
I'm the Killer Man's son...
But I'll do the killing...
Until the Killer Man comes...

SmokingTarpan

Sorry, misread of the article. These subpoena's were of a special type called National Security Letter, and not subject to judiciary oversight (meaning no challenges). Their use in this case as related to the Patriot Act was ruled unconstitutional.

Apologies for the mistake.

__________________

[squadl]
"I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

leejo

I guess the reason why I'm pretty impatient with this sort of discussion is because it's almost always the same people griping about Iraq who gripe about the Patriot Act who gripe about Bush. I would like someone to explain what the plan is for fighting terror if neither of these fit into their scheme. Seriously. It all just looks like mindless Bush-bashing to me.

Are parts of the Patriot Act scary? Sure. But there IS oversight and the opposition party is included in that oversight. Does anyone doubt for a second that the NY Times would be running front page stories from now 'till November 2006 if a Democrat on a committee got wind of a really juicy abrogation of a civil liberty?

Magnum50

Well, it was a good discussion, but some people here seem to take themselves to serious... I can respect other opinions, but when you clearly close your mind to mine, theres no use continuing...

It's not a perfect system, but it's the best in the world ATM... but don't worry... IMO, in ten years time, the USA, (like Russia in the 80's) will lose there super power ness... I think China will be the next superpower... then we can cut off all the aid and help, and world police actions that we take the brunt of, and hand it over to the new super power... then be like France or Germany, and sit back and complain about what the new super power is doing. (if you haven't noticed... this is my opinion of truth, with a little humor... don't take it or others opinions so seriously... and remember...)

My final opinion on this topic and the direction it is going is in the attached video...
(BE WARNED... could be considered rude and crude...but remember...it's COMEDY)

http://www.magnumland.com/Downloads/Great%20Speech.avi
(recommend you right click and save as)
(divx codex needed)

__________________
Magnum
www.gettacticaldammit.com

Pokerface

Let's start at that last one and see if we work our way up to the top.

The trouble with this whole debacle is "wartime". This isn't WWII where sovreign nations were beating each other up and the war ended when a leader signed a piece of paper saying that he gave up. Terrorism is timeless and stateless; there's no particular beginning, and there certainly isn't a forseeable end. This means that the "wartime" of which you speak has no forseeable end as well, making "wartime" laws effectively permanant laws.

Is it possible that the government can use the powers without abusing them? Sure, I suppose. But does that mean they should have those powers in the first place? It's possible that a baby with a jackhammer might not wreck my house, but I'm not about to grant the baby the power to try not to.

Of course powers overlap the liberties. Cops have guns to shoot bad guys, etc etc. The point with all that stuff though is that everything comes with oversight, and damn near everything is public. The Patriot Act changed a lot of that in the name of "safety".

Can the government act swiftly? When have they ever? :P
Seriously though, everything in the government needs to be biased towards ensuring rights for the innocent, not to denying rights to the guilty. That's why there's a "Bill of Rights" instead of a "Bill of Stuff You Best Not Be Caught Doin'"

__________________

NS Game Officer. TF2 Admin. BF2 Admin / Scripter. PM with issues.
Tempus: Pokerface is nailing it right on the head. Everyone who is arguing against him is simply arguing against reality.
<anmuzi> it is not permitted to have privacy or anonymity
<LazyEye> yeah when I play on TG the server digs though my trash
Arm yourself with knowledge: TG NS TF2 BF2

saik0

Bah, I'm going back to my original order!

I never asked if the govt CAN or HAS acted swiftly, I asked if they should. And I'll add particularly on matter of terrorism. Somehow I get the feeling I still wont get a simple yes =D. Oh, and by the way legislative proposals in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were introduced less than a week after the attacks. President Bush signed the final bill, the USA PATRIOT Act, into law on 10/26.

The thing with the baby and the jackhammer is way off. I'm sure Bush has at least a 3rd grade reading level . In all seriosness heres a better example. If you give your bodyguard a gun, he can protect you better, but he can also shoot you in the face.

And finally, I touched on the whole Orwellian eternal wartime thing earlier, and what you've said is actually exactly the direciton I was heading with my question. Way to ruin it for me Pokerface.

The problem with this discussion is that it will always be circular because both sides are correct. The USA PATRIOT Act really does help national security, and it really does threaten our liberties. What's actually being debated here is "Which do you value more?"

The final point I've been working towards is giving the govt. some specific new and temporary powers to fight a certain threat is'nt bad in theory, and would even work in practice with the proper checks and balances. This is not what we got. Maybe we can discuss "What can we do now?" instead.

Edit: As you may yourself be presently aware, my grammer sucks.

leejo

But that's not a question that needs to be, nor ever is, answered once and for all times. We have in our history tightened security and relaxed it. Once things cool off, we can relax it.

With regard to the GWOT being an eternal thing, I disagree. We're not at war with terrorism, we're at war with organized radical Islam. That's a real target that can be hit and destroyed. The only question is how expensive it's going to be and how many people we have to kill to get the job done. That's sorta up to the Muslims to decide by either becoming much more helpful or not.

9/11 cost roughly a trillion dollars. Bam. $1,000,000,000,000.00 If the map of the middle east has to be rearranged or if it has to change shape, we're going to find a way to end this war with a V..

leejo

More scare-mongering:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=97...C-RSSFeeds0312

Authorities Arrest Men With NYC Maps, Video

Dirt013

Wait...i was told that it was all president Bush's fault!

Dirt013

Bowdie

"Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security."

—Benjamin Franklin

leejo

Here is the actual quote:

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

I suggest that we can all agree with this. The question becomes what does "essential" mean. Would Franklin have been ok with trading some modest liberties for a lot of safety right after 3000 Bostonians were murdered? Who knows?

In my mind, we have traded some trivial liberties to obtain some essential safety. Once the mission is done, and it will be done, things can relax again and we can enjoy our peace dividend. It's happened before, it'll happen again.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the US Constitution:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Only Congress has the power to suspend Habeas Corpus, and only under circumstances that the framers of the constitution, including Franklin, anticipated. Circumstances much like the ones that lead to the Patriot Act. Wow! The system works!!!

Kojio

The stock market was dropping well before 9/11, there was no dramatic 'U-Turn.' The 'scare tactics' deployed by news media after the attacks only acellerated the problem into a deep recession. The market has bounced a long way back since then, so it's inaccurate and unfair to associate our economy as being 'pinned down' by terror. That is a crock of ****.

If you can't find a job in a certain career path, due to world events, that is one thing. But if you can't even find a simple job, nobody is to blame but yourself.