200 Communities and States Take Aim at the Patriot Act; Critics Offer Substitutes for its Misleading Name NORTHAMPTON, MA - October 23 - The public’s disenchantment with the Patriot Act reached a new high on October 21 as the local governments of Bisbee, AZ; Robbinsdale, MN; and Urbana, NY, passed resolutions decrying the hastily passed legislation and declaring themselves “civil liberties safe zones.” The recent additions brought the total of local and state governments opposing the Patriot Act to 200 and the populations of such communities to more than 25.5 million... ...To “help fix the Patriot Act, starting with its name,” the Bill of Rights Defense Committee last month announced a contest to “Rename the Patriot Act” using the letters of its acronym [USA PATRIOT]. Winning entries are: Useless State-sponsored Action Purporting to Attack Terror While Really Initiating an Oligarchic Takeover, from Monroe Rabin, Amherst, Massachusetts. Unseemly and Simplistic Attempt to Preclude Americans’ Treasured Rights by Inapt Obsession with Terrorism, from Randy Herrick-Stare, Washington, D.C. Unilaterally Subverting America by Punishing Activists and Torturing and Repressing Immigrants by Oppression and Tyranny, from Ellen Kaye, Brattleboro, VT.... I'm PROUD to say that my hometown, Willingboro New Jersey, became the first community in New Jersey to pass a resolution opposing the Patriot Act, on September 9, 2003... Get your town in gear! 25.5 million so far...
Hmmm...Ashcroft arrests terrorists, put in place laws to arrest these scumbags before we have another 9-11-01 and you lemmings complain. Meanwhile, Reno raided and killed children at Waco, invaded a little child's home and sent him to the hell hole named Cuba, and there's no uproar. Not to mention the selling out of America to Hispanics by both parties. Good to see we have our priorities in order.
My priority is Due Process for ALL AMERICANS first! The problem with proponents of the Patriot Act, is that they use the word "freedom" religiously but they don't tell you who that "freedom" applies to... How about using the agencies we have in place correctly in the first place, instead of "Selling Out" our civil liberties in FEAR. Last time I checked, there was an uproar over Waco, and over E. Gonzalez! How the F*** would we know that Aschroft is "putting away terrorists" when no one can define the word "Terrorist" itself!!! I'm going to assume that you don't care about other people's civil liberties, because right now, you don't feel they pertain to you! Think outside of yourself... Typical Conservative F***wit... Don't call me when the bigger fish comes along and swallows you whole!
Life in Kissimmee St. Cloud, among all the big Mice, Dwarves, and Fairies must have warped your mind, oh deluded one... (1) First rule of law: it applies to all. (2) There was no uproar over Reno's actions at Waco? Are you high? (3) Is it or is it not the case that USA PATRIOT violates both: -The Fourth Amendment, which, in case you lack knowledge about the nation's set of decision-rules, states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." -The First Section of the Eighth Amendment ("All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." I mean, even if you ascribe to the notion that due process of law does not always mean a proceeding in court, as established by both Ballard v. Hunter, 204 U.S. 241, 255 (1907) and Palmer v. McMahon, 133 U.S. 660, 668 (1890), you still must concede the point established in Marchant v. Pennsylvania R.R., 153 U.S. 380, 386 (1894), which was that IF due process is to be secured, the laws must operate alike upon all and not subject the individual to the arbitrary exercise of governmental power unrestrained by established principles of private rights and distributive justice. There is no question that USA PATRIOT fails that test; it is Ashcroft's very RELIANCE on the ignorance of most to the law and established precendents, combined with the culture of frear that pervades not only this board, but the American psyche generally, and the U.S. Congress most significanty, that allows this type of legislation to be passed, and shite like PATRIOT II to even be thought about. If you think about it, there is no question that the far-right whackos, not unlike Ian McCracken, who are positions of power, infulence and authority (unlike Ian, thank God), are using the horror of the events of 11 Spetember 2001 to shove through, due to the pervasive fear surrounding most procedures and deliberations today, a fascist, far-right agenda that flies in the very face of both the Founding Principles of the Nation, the evolving sensibilities, and the men and women who laid down their life - to the tune of 50 million globally - fighting the spread of this type of governance by Nazi Germany and the other Axis Powers. All that, for this generation to lie down when the going gets tough? Hell no. Well, maybe folks like you, but certainly not my kith and kin.
This is retarded. It is one thing to argue that the Patriot Act goes too far regarding civil liberties (which I dont agree with for starters..), it is another to say that the administration is using 9/11 as more of a mere "convenience" to push along ulterior motives, as if some hidden conspiracy exists right under out noses... pure horseshit indeed..
Patriot is indefensible legislation. PAII is even worse - let's hope that one doesn't pass, and that anyone who votes to revoke the sunset clause on PAI is promptly voted straight out of office.
Have you READ the National Security Strategy of the United States? Who, in the main, drafted that document? Are you aware of the Denfense Policy Board, and how that body influnced, and influences, the entire Bush team? The only equine feces being slung around here is issuing from you...you're clearly uninformed. There is no question that if 9/11 had not happened, the policy measures found in both the recommendations of the Defense Policy Board and in the above Nat. Sec. Strat. document would have fallen on nationally deaf ears, as they had for some time prior to 9/11.
Possibly, in fact probably. Many things were looked at differently b/4 9/11. To sit there and analyze what should/would have happened is useless. But is it so unreasonable to think that the administration is taking steps to try to eliminate any further attacks domestically, without having a secret agenda? I find it odd that you are so cynical, even paranoid, right off the bat and assume the worse, in every circumstance.. the fact that you are so obssessed with delving in and finding any negative is truly saddening...
(1) I don't think aything about the agenda is secret; nor do I think it is publicly propagated...it simply IS, and those who have simply paid attention to Cheney, Wolfowitz, Pearle and the like have known this about them for some time now. (2) Stop putting words in my mouth; I said, very clearly, the following: ...there is no question that the far-right whackos, not unlike Ian McCracken, who are positions of power, infulence and authority (unlike Ian, thank God), are using the horror of the events of 11 Spetember 2001 to shove through, due to the pervasive fear surrounding most procedures and deliberations today, a fascist, far-right agenda... That's not assuming the worst; that's quite simply observing reality and relaying it, mostly to folks like yourself, in desparate need of a reality-check.
If you're worried about your civil liberties being violated, please keep in mind that Kucinich is the only candidate to have voted against the Patriot act.
My problem with the Patriot Act is not with its intentions. The Patriot Act's intentions are good. Keeping the US safe from terrorist acts? That's a good thing. My problem with the Patriot Act is the reality of how it is currently used and how it will be used. And one thing that we know from history, from every single government that has ever existed in human history, no matter what kind of government, is that once any governmental authority is given power in one area or another, they'll try to exploit it for all it's worth, with little regard for individual citizens. There have been so few instances of governments' restraint when they have the power to act so much more recklessly, that believing that the federal and state governments will not try to exploit the Patriot Act to the hilt is a bit like believing in Santa Claus. Already, the Patriot Act has been used against a guy running a meth lab in North Carolina. Apparently, meth is now a chemical weapon, in which case, Ole Five-to-Four should assemble a coalition of the willing to institute regime change in Wise County, Texas. The fact that the prosecutor can now ask for 12 years to life for a guy who might've only gotten six months previously is probably merely coincidental. Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending anyone running a crank lab. The guy deserves some time in the hole. But if you think that prosecutors -- who are under constant pressure to get convictions and big sentences -- aren't going to use the Patriot Act for things that have nothing to do with keeping us safe from terrorists, then you really need to talk to anti-abortion activists about their opinion of the RICO laws, which were originally passed to combat the mob.