Patriot Act and the ACLU

[August1991]

Saying that "democracy abhors undue secrecy," a federal court today struck down an entire Patriot Act provision that gives the government unchecked authority to issue "National Security Letters" to obtain sensitive customer records from Internet Service Providers and other businesses without judicial oversight. The court also found a broad gag provision in the law to be an "unconstitutional prior restraint" on free speech.

ACLU web site

If I understand properly, this is one of two main challenges of the ACLU to the Patriot Act. (The other challenge concerns the Justice Department's right to intercept/examine personal documents without judicial oversight.)

The Patriot Act strikes me as similar to the War Measures Act. I'm surprised the US has adopted a Canadian solution to a problem.

I would not be surprised if the US Supreme Court eventually strikes down many sections of the Patriot Act as being unconstitutional. The Act seems to have been prepared in a hurry and is badly written. The Bush Administration may well have known this and realized that the Act gave it a "window of opportunity" of several years.

[Black Dog]

It's also worth pointing out again that the ACLU was prevented from releasing the text of its lawsuit challenging aspects of the Patriot Act because the government claimed it would violate secrecy provisions of the act

The Patriot Act strikes me as similar to the War Measures Act. I'm surprised the US has adopted a Canadian solution to a problem.

The key differnece being the war Measures Act was struck down.

The Act seems to have been prepared in a hurry and is badly written. The Bush Administration may well have known this and realized that the Act gave it a "window of opportunity" of several years.

I disagree with the first point. I expect Patriot was sitting on the shelf for some time prior to 9-11. That event simply gave the government the right impetus to expand the powers of law enforcement beyond their usual range.

• In Las Vegas, police used a FISA warrant to monitor the activities of a strip club owner.
  
• The FBI ordered all journalists that have ever written about computer hacker, Adrian Lamo, to turn over their information under the auspices of the Patriot Act.
  
• In April, 2004, a Muslim Idaho man went on trial on charges of supporting terrorism by maintaining some web sites (among many he assisted) that supported violent activities. This type of "guilt by association" was resurrected by the 1996 "anti-terrorism" act signed by President Clinton, but was further expanded under the Patriot Act
  
• In May 2004, the FBI cordoned off the entire block of a University of Buffalo associate art professor's house, impounding his computers, manuscripts, books, equipment for further analysis and The Buffalo Health Department temporarily condemned the house as a health risk after suspicious vials and bacterial cultures were discovered at his home. The professor, whose art involves the use of biology equipment as part of a project educating the public about the politics of biotechnology was charged with violations under the Section 175 of the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act which was expanded by the USA Patriot Act.
  
• The maintainer of a TV-show fan website was charged with copyright infringement after the MPAA directed the FBI to obtain records from the site's Internet service provider about the site under the USA PATRIOT Act
  

Beyond the above examples, in September 2003, the New York Times reported that a study by Congress showed hundreds of cases where the Patriot Act was used to investigate non-terrorist crimes.

Secrecy and a state hungry for expanded powers are among the hallmarks of totalitarianism. Americans who believe they can surrender freedoms for security will soon find they have neither.

[Guest eureka]

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~sprague/wma.htm

It might be helpful to see the War Measures Act: link above.

Note that it is onlt to be used in time of War, Invasion or insurrection. Note also the differences in scope from the Ptriot Act and in possible usage as compared to the examples that BlackDog gave.

[Big Blue Machine]

I don't have a problem with the Patriot Act, because I have nothing to hide. The government can look at my school grades or my library book check outs or what ever.

[BigDookie6]

I'm just curious to know from the Eureka's, Black Dogs, Hugos, and everyone else, What's so wrong with the Patriot Act? (In your own words please)

Why is it that the government and local law enforcement agencies can and has used these tactics before for the Mafia, prostitution, drug dealing, etc; but not for suspicious terrorist activity? I understand the PA as giving those who are investigating terrorism the same tools and resources that they need when investigating those, in which I listed. And that it allows FBI, CIA, local police to share information that they were not allowed to do before. A lot are saying that 9/11 might have been prevented if they could have just connected the dots, but were not allowed to share the dots. How has it been abused?

[Hugo]

What's so wrong with the Patriot Act?

It represents further accumulation of government power. Since government consists of individuals, what this effectively means is that some individuals are being granted a lot of rights and power over other individuals. The simple rule of just human relationships is that if a person has a right over me, I must have the same right over them. Anything else is justification for iniquity and, ultimately, slavery and oppression.

If you wonder what was wrong with Nazi Germany, consider that, ultimately, they just considered that some human beings deserved to be awarded rights over other human beings. In this, the Patriot Act differs only in the extent and the measures, not in the basic principle.

Why is it that the government and local law enforcement agencies can and has used these tactics before for the Mafia, prostitution, drug dealing, etc; but not for suspicious terrorist activity?

You will have to ask the government. They generally don't like prostitution and drug dealing because the opinions of the man in the street give them a good excuse to oppress people with different opinions (if someone wants to sell their sexual services or inject drugs, what business is it of yours?), and also a good excuse to confiscate the money of the man in the street to do so. They also allow the government to couch its actions in a cloak of moral superiority, which disguises the true nature of government, which leads us on to the Mafia.

The Mafia basically compete with the government. They run themselves along exactly the same lines: they demand money in exchange for dubious protection, and should the the protectees refuse to pay up the Mafia will do them bodily harm. This is exactly how the government operates. Of course, as violent extortionists, when the paths of the government and the Mafia cross they generally start being violent to one another.

A lot are saying that 9/11 might have been prevented if they could have just connected the dots, but were not allowed to share the dots.

It's interesting that you mention that. The US government was supposedly receiving money from US citizens to protect them. It failed catastrophically on 9/11, and many times before and since. If I was paying money to a protection agency that allowed massive harm to be done to my loved ones, I would immediately cancel my contract and consider a lawsuit against them.

What happened to the government? They got more power and more money. Rewarding incompetence and stupidity, that's what I like to see.

The fact is that terrorism and WMD are basically the death knell for the state and for government. In order to kill thousands of people in the past, you needed a big army, a state. Now, all you need is a box cutter, apparently. To kill millions of people in the past required an army like that of Jengiz Khan or Adolf Hitler, now, all you need is a phial or two of pneumonic plague bacteria.

Government cannot respond to these threats. Terror and WMD are taking power and initiative away from government and into the hands of individuals. The only way for government to survive against this radical and violent individualism is to become massive, a police state, and we all know what happens to police states: they tear themselves apart from the rage of their enslaved populations. The Patriot Act is another step down America's road to the totalitarian police state.

[BigDookie6]

It represents further accumulation of government power. Since government consists of individuals, what this effectively means is that some individuals are being granted a lot of rights and power over other individuals. The simple rule of just human relationships is that if a person has a right over me, I must have the same right over them. Anything else is justification for iniquity and, ultimately, slavery and oppression.

If I believed in anarchy then I would agree with you. Lets just say, that you were not an anarchist, could you still tell me what's wrong with the Patriot Act? (From an "other than anarchy" point of view?)

(if someone wants to sell their sexual services or inject drugs, what business is it of yours?)

Government is not the only one who has an opinion on this. Public safety health issue, and most people would agree. I don't want to have to walk down the streets with my daughter in my community and see druggies or hookers soliciting or passed out on the street because of their chosen lifestyle. It is unsafe and unhealthy. Ever been to San Francisco? You can literally walk down some of the streets and see passed out bums, next to human feces, laying in their own piss. Have a little pride in you community, and we do not need the govt. to tell us that.

The Mafia basically compete with the government. They run themselves along exactly the same lines: they demand money in exchange for dubious protection, and should the the protectees refuse to pay up the Mafia will do them bodily harm. This is exactly how the government operates. Of course, as violent extortionists, when the paths of the government and the Mafia cross they generally start being violent to one another.

We can agree on this!

It's interesting that you mention that. The US government was supposedly receiving money from US citizens to protect them. It failed catastrophically on 9/11, and many times before and since. If I was paying money to a protection agency that allowed massive harm to be done to my loved ones, I would immediately cancel my contract and consider a lawsuit against them.

You're probably right, but we can't sue the government.

What happened to the government? They got more power and more money. Rewarding incompetence and stupidity, that's what I like to see.

Wouldn't this happen if we were anarchists anyway? Strongest would gain power, corruption, chaos? Sort of like the tribesman in Iraq?

Government cannot respond to these threats. Terror and WMD are taking power and initiative away from government and into the hands of individuals. The only way for government to survive against this radical and violent individualism is to become massive, a police state, and we all know what happens to police states: they tear themselves apart from the rage of their enslaved populations. The Patriot Act is another step down America's road to the totalitarian police state.

You may be right! But until then, we have to trust our govt. that the PA will help protect it's people from another 9/11 or Okla. City, and prosecute those individuals, who are trying to do so. Before the PA enactment, those types of individuals were protected. And I'm sure once there is an abuse on civil rights because of the PA... The ACLU will let us know!

[Guest eureka]

These include various changes to search and seizure laws that basically allow the federal government, with the aid of local police, to monitor what individuals read, to search homes without probable cause, to access people's bank accounts without their knowledge, to tap people's phones or get search warrants without probable cause of criminal activity, and to easily expel legal non-citizens with little court review.

These changes in federal law present such a clear threat to civil liberties that Patriot Act criticisms have become trite. By identifying the specific issues it has with the bill, the council made Mountain View stand out from the nearly 200 local governments around the country that have called for a repeal of the entire Act.

Rather than put the criticisms in my own words, I will start with the above. 200 Local Councils are calling for repeal of the Patriot Act.

This is a little bit of a summary of what is wrong with the Act. There is a myriad instances already of Civil Rights abuse.

[BigDookie6]

Rather than put the criticisms in my own words, I will start with the above. 200 Local Councils are calling for repeal of the Patriot Act.

I wonder how much the ACLU is getting out of this? Seems odd that a civil liberties organization is so wealthy, supposedly by protecting our civil rights; you'd think they really are non-profit. I bet if the government or independent did some thorough research they might find the term, "raketeering" "You''re city better appeal, or we're going to sue!" And I'm willing to bet that almost more than half of those 200 cities, there are a lot of minorities on those councils! Misunderstood! PA's not going after minorities, just suspicious activity; White, Black, Asian, Mexican, Canadian...PA doesn't care what color or nationality! Seems that this is the major argument! Because we all know the govt. can't spy on everyone!

This is a little bit of a summary of what is wrong with the Act. There is a myriad instances already of Civil Rights abuse.

Care to state one?

[Hugo]

Lets just say, that you were not an anarchist, could you still tell me what's wrong with the Patriot Act?

I don't think that's a fair question. You're asking me to pretend I hold somebody elses opinions and then argue from them. Eureka isn't an anarchist and doesn't agree with the Patriot Act, so I'd suggest you continue this with him.

Public safety health issue, and most people would agree. I don't want to have to walk down the streets with my daughter in my community and see druggies or hookers soliciting or passed out on the street because of their chosen lifestyle. It is unsafe and unhealthy.

This is a problem stemming from the notion of public or communal property, not from drug use or prostitution. Since the government won't stop people using streets where they aren't wanted, they have to stop people even participating in society at all by imprisoning them.

As regards what's healthy and safe for people, let's remember that the government has permitted suicide, alcoholism, tobacco addiction, freefall parachuting, abortion pills, steak knives, chainsaws, SUVs, and many other things besides. The claim that outlawing prostitution and drug use is for the interests of public health and safety just doesn't ring true given all the dangers to public health and safety that the government is not interested in.

We can agree on this!

If you admit this, I'm curious as to how you justify your statism.

You're probably right, but we can't sue the government.

Who decided that?

Wouldn't this happen if we were anarchists anyway? Strongest would gain power, corruption, chaos?

This is the most common objection to anarchism I see. Basically, your fear about anarchy is that another government would appear, therefore, you want to keep government. It makes no sense.

Besides, as I said, the empirical evidence proves this wrong. Historical anarchy has never collapsed or disintegrated into despotism of its own accord, it has always been destroyed by foreign aggression. Therefore, it follows that the most pressing problem facing anarchist nations is defence against statist nations, not any kind of internal problem.

You may be right! But until then, we have to trust our govt. that the PA will help protect it's people from another 9/11 or Okla. City, and prosecute those individuals, who are trying to do so.

I'm sorry, but I can't trust governments. In the 20th Century alone, governments killed 170,000,000 innocent people and another 34,000,000 in wars. The empirical evidence is clear: the greatest threat to human life is not terrorists, but governments.

Governments don't really care about their people, they care about themselves - continued power, government jobs, and tax income is what they care about. There are far too many abuses taking place with the blessing of government for me to believe that they have the best interests of their citizens at heart.

And I'm sure once there is an abuse on civil rights because of the PA... The ACLU will let us know!

As I said, a federal judge already found in their favour.

[Guest eureka]

Should you not comment on those dangers of the Act that are listed instead of bringing in the ACLU? What as that organization to do with local councils? The Act is federal not municipal.

The makeup of the councils does not enter into the question either. The ills are listed. Tell us how they are not an infringement of civil liberties: a step on the path to totalitarianism as someone said earlier.

Try also the National Association of Librarians which has posted warnings in libraries for patrons to understan what danger they run by reading books.

Bush, who has read few books, has found a better way than Savanorola.

Talking about that, did you hear that the Bush Presidential Library has burnt down. Georgie was most upset. It contained only two books and he had not finished colouring one.

[BigDookie6]

I don't think that's a fair question. You're asking me to pretend I hold somebody elses opinions and then argue from them. Eureka isn't an anarchist and doesn't agree with the Patriot Act, so I'd suggest you continue this with him.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing when you asked if I would kill my citizens if ordered to (hypothetically)

Still waiting....

This is a problem stemming from the notion of public or communal property, not from drug use or prostitution. Since the government won't stop people using streets where they aren't wanted, they have to stop people even participating in society at all by imprisoning them.

I know I'm dense, but you need to explain this one to me... I honestly do not know WTF you just said???

As regards what's healthy and safe for people, let's remember that the government has permitted suicide, alcoholism, tobacco addiction, freefall parachuting, abortion pills, steak knives, chainsaws, SUVs, and many other things besides. The claim that outlawing prostitution and drug use is for the interests of public health and safety just doesn't ring true given all the dangers to public health and safety that the government is not interested in.

Again, wouldn't this all be possible with anarchy? Prostitution and drug use is a state issue. Look at Nevada! Look at Oregon, they've almost legalized marijuana. You asked previously ..."What business is it of mine?" I never said it must be outlawed; just don't do it in front of me. Your examples (with the exception of Alcoholism, suicide, tobacco, and abortion) are not self destructive behaviors. You're going to argue no matter what. We just do not have the same moral values. I'm not religious at all (so do not think I am a "bible thumper" because of my morals) I do not own an SUV, but I do have steak knives, guns, a chainsaw and many other things that could be deemed dangerous. But not to society! If I were a druggie on the street, I would have sold those things, and probably committ crime to maintain my habbit. A personal choice I choose not to make, not the govt.

If you admit this, I'm curious as to how you justify your statism.

I didn't admit anything, just agreed. America (some say) is a benign hypocrisy. We do not committ atrocities, but piss us off we're coming after you! (This is what our govt. does) Sometimes they are justified, sometimes not. But not a gang of thugs... They just act like it sometimes! You want to believe that democracy is a form of 'statism'. Maybe in theory; but our democracy is not even close to nazism, socialism, or communism... I am a nationalist! (happy now?)

Who decided that?

I know where you are going and you are probably right... But unfortunatley, we'd need a 2-3 million man army, marching down Capitol Hill to change this. I do not see it happening anytime soon. And that's our fault. We're too consumed with T.V., technology, capitalism and shopping, etc. to get everyone on board all at once. And that's what it would take.

This is the most common objection to anarchism I see. Basically, your fear about anarchy is that another government would appear, therefore, you want to keep government. It makes no sense.

It may not be in our best interest all the time, but we really do like our law & order! I see the movie, "Road Warrior" when I think of anarchy

Besides, as I said, the empirical evidence proves this wrong. Historical anarchy has never collapsed or disintegrated into despotism of its own accord, it has always been destroyed by foreign aggression. Therefore, it follows that the most pressing problem facing anarchist nations is defence against statist nations, not any kind of internal problem.

What (if anything) has anarchy achieved besides chaos and lawlessness?

I'm sorry, but I can't trust governments. In the 20th Century alone, governments killed 170,000,000 innocent people and another 34,000,000 in wars. The empirical evidence is clear: the greatest threat to human life is not terrorists, but governments.

Plague & disease wiped out whole colonies! How would you answer the extinction of the dinosaurs? Death is inevitable! Whether it be war or natural selection, it is our nature and a product of our environment. Strongest, smartest and now the wealthiest will survive!

Would anarchy protect it's people?

Governments don't really care about their people, they care about themselves - continued power, government jobs, and tax income is what they care about. There are far too many abuses taking place with the blessing of government for me to believe that they have the best interests of their citizens at heart.

Human behavior... We're all guilty of selfishness from time to time!

As I said, a federal judge already found in their favour.

I understand what you keep repeating, but why? There is fear, but no clear case of abuse from the PA!

[Hugo]

Funny, I was thinking the same thing when you asked if I would kill my citizens if ordered to

Not the same thing. I asked what you would do in a hypothetical situation. You asked me what a hypothetical person would say in a real situation.

I know I'm dense, but you need to explain this one to me... I honestly do not know WTF you just said???

If you create "public space" to which all can have access, the minute you legislate that public space you are claiming a right over it, which means it isn't public, it's yours (and if majority mandate makes the law, it's owned by the majority).

Again, wouldn't this all be possible with anarchy?

Sure, until you aggress against another person - then you've broken the rule of decent human interaction.

..."What business is it of mine?" I never said it must be outlawed; just don't do it in front of me.

Replace 'in front of me' with 'on my property' and you're an anarcho-capitalist.

You want to believe that democracy is a form of 'statism'. Maybe in theory; but our democracy is not even close to nazism, socialism, or communism... I am a nationalist!

Democracy gave rise to Nazism, socialism and communism on several occasions. Democracy is still statism, but instead of a dictator, you place power in the hands of the majority or, in practice, in the hands of a few people who managed to convince more people to back them than their opponents.

It may not be in our best interest all the time, but we really do like our law & order! I see the movie, "Road Warrior" when I think of anarchy

Then perhaps you should watch fewer action movies!

What (if anything) has anarchy achieved besides chaos and lawlessness?

Those are achievements in and of themselves! Chaos has a bad name, but in practice, we see that it is better than order. Capitalism is chaos, and it gives us better standards of living and more for less than communism, which is ordered. Democracy is chaos, and it gives us more freedom and rights than totalitarianism, which is ordered. A free press is chaos, which gives us a wider range of opinions and ideas and greater progress than state media, which is ordered.

And as regards lawlessness, I fully agree with Leo Tolstoy's opinion: "Laws are rules made by people who govern by means of organized violence, for non-compliance with which the non-complier is subjected to blows, to loss of liberty, or even to being murdered." That being the case, I would vastly prefer lawlessness.

Plague & disease wiped out whole colonies! How would you answer the extinction of the dinosaurs? Death is inevitable! Whether it be war or natural selection, it is our nature and a product of our environment. Strongest, smartest and now the wealthiest will survive!

Are you a nihilist or something?

Would anarchy protect it's people?

Would government stop killing its people?

Human behavior... We're all guilty of selfishness from time to time!

Which is exactly why no human should be granted power and monopoly over violence.

I understand what you keep repeating, but why? There is fear, but no clear case of abuse from the PA!

If there was no clear case of abuse, why would a judge have ruled that there was? Was he insane? Was he bribed? What?

[BigDookie6]

OK Hugo... You're an anarchist! Sorry you're not convincing me though. I guess I'm just too ignorant! Still, I want the junkies and hookers off the street If I want to do those kinds of things, I'll go to a whorehouse and cook-up!

Are you a nihilist or something?

Why would you think that, after reading this? C'mon Hugo...I'm losing respect for you now!

BD6 Wrote:

Plague & disease wiped out whole colonies! How would you answer the extinction of the dinosaurs? Death is inevitable! Whether it be war or natural selection, it is our nature and a product of our environment. Strongest, smartest and now the wealthiest will survive!

Would government stop killing its people?

Is that your answer or contradiction to how anarchy would protect it's people?

Which is exactly why no human should be granted power and monopoly over violence.

Guess you'd better win that space travel competition! That argument doesn't fly on this planet!

If there was no clear case of abuse, why would a judge have ruled that there was? Was he insane? Was he bribed? What?

Gee.... Eureka? You want to answer this one for me? Maybe he thought it would be "unconstitutional" As extreme Liberal (judges I might add) do who are afraid of not getting re-elected or was lobbied with a lot of money. But I do not know. I do know there has been 0 (zero) violations or abuses of anyone's civil rights.

Would you automatically assume that all who are in favor of the PA are racist, because we want agencies & law enforcement to profile for the protection of ALL, even if they profile myself? Those of us who are in favor are willing to sacrifice certain civil liberties. We just do not agree Hugo!

[Hugo]

Why would you think that [i'm a nihilist], after reading this?

Because you seemed to be saying that death is inevitable, and the mode and timing are therefore irrelevant (non sequitur, but I digress). That sounds like quite a nihilistic attitude to me, so I'm asking if that is what you actually believe.

Is that your answer or contradiction to how anarchy would protect it's people?

My answer is that it is foolish to wonder how anarchy would protect its people without realising that anything anarchy 'does' (in as much as an absence of something could do anything) could not fail to be better than government, which actually kills its people. Any method of protection or even no method at all is better than active persecution and murder. If I protect you badly or don't protect you at all, that's still better than my trying to hurt you or steal your possessions, right?

Maybe he thought it would be "unconstitutional" As extreme Liberal (judges I might add) do who are afraid of not getting re-elected or was lobbied with a lot of money.

So, let me make sure that I understand this. The government passes the Patriot Act, and you accept it, and you talk of trusting the government and a belief that it will do the "right thing", whatever that is (you seemed to deny the existence of any moral absolutes above). But when a judge strikes that Act down or a part thereof, you assume his motives must be selfish in some way. This is inconsistent and self-contradictory.

Those of us who are in favor are willing to sacrifice certain civil liberties.

If you sacrifice something, there is a recipient of that sacrifice. To whom are you sacrificing your civil liberties, BD6, and why do you think that's wise?

[BigDookie6]

So, let me make sure that I understand this. The government passes the Patriot Act, and you accept it, and you talk of trusting the government and a belief that it will do the "right thing", whatever that is (you seemed to deny the existence of any moral absolutes above). But when a judge strikes that Act down or a part thereof, you assume his motives must be selfish in some way. This is inconsistent and self-contradictory.

If you sacrifice something, there is a recipient of that sacrifice. To whom are you sacrificing your civil liberties, BD6, and why do you think that's wise?

What many argue about the PA is that it could be possible for govt. to spy on it's citizens. (Need we go over this gain?) And another argument is racial profiling.

1.) Govt. cannot and will not spy on every citizen. Not enough money, time or manpower to do so. This is a failing argument if people truly believe in "big bro politics"

2.) The Left and ACLU uses "racial profiling" to sound like the govt. and local authorities are specifically targeting certain individuals. (In very rare cases, this happens and is wrong.)

~This is where the country is split in half, Hugo... Some do not want racial profiling period. Some (including myself) feel that it is necessary to help law enforcement, even if they target myself, and are willing to allow that. Do you think it is wise that if there is a suspect on the loose, to inform the public of an exact description? Or is that absolutely "unconstitutional"?

Would you agree that govt. is more closely watched by the public & media today, than 10 years ago? I trust that the public and media will be the first to let the world know if govt. were spying on everyone, violating America's civil rights. I am willing to take that chance and sacrifice a little bit, than give an illegal terrorist a 'loophole' through our legal system to conduct another 9/11. Or an illegal Mexican who kidnaps a little girl, murders her, and flees back to Mexico. All because we were affraid to tell the public who and what he was. Not flying!

Convince me Hugo... If I obey the law, pay my taxes, vote and monitor the government like I do... What am I affraid of?

[Guest eureka]

There seems little evidence that you "monitor the government." Or that the media or public does in the States. How else would you account for your ignorance of the offenses already committed under the provisions of the Patriot Act?

How else would you account for the 42% of the American people who still think that Saddam Hussein was behind the WTC calamity? This was the position of the administration and now, three years later and thousands of proofs that he was not, much of the public thinks he was.

How would you account for the belief that Iraq had ties with Al Quaeda when it was a mortal enemy of Hussein? How would you account for the administration's still asserting that Iraq was attempting to buy Nuclear fuels from Niger when its own investigator said it was not - and the public belief that it was?

There are a myriad more instances of public ignorance and media failure. How do you account for these. They indicate only public indifference and deference to authority and media compliance with political wishes.

[BigDookie6]

There seems little evidence that you "monitor the government." Or that the media or public does in the States. How else would you account for your ignorance of the offenses already committed under the provisions of the Patriot Act?

Funny, the ACLU (in which you seem to admire so much) has found zero violations! They want to revise and appeal... That is all you have provided!

How else would you account for the 42% of the American people who still think that Saddam Hussein was behind the WTC calamity? This was the position of the administration and now, three years later and thousands of proofs that he was not, much of the public thinks he was.

Based on the information given to us by the CIA and other world intelligence. Not just the govt. cramming it down our throats as you would like to believe. That's how! Has nothing to do with civil rights being violated!

How would you account for the belief that Iraq had ties with Al Quaeda when it was a mortal enemy of Hussein? How would you account for the administration's still asserting that Iraq was attempting to buy Nuclear fuels from Niger when its own investigator said it was not - and the public belief that it was?

Funny how we are finding this out right now... Which backs up my point that Americans are not kept silent! (I'm copying & pasting the same answer.)Based on the information given to us by the CIA and other world intelligence.

There are a myriad more instances of public ignorance and media failure. How do you account for these. They indicate only public indifference and deference to authority and media compliance with political wishes.

(Already commented on this...) It's a "Truth War" Eureka! America is not perfect (although Canadians seem to think so.) We've acknowledged the mistakes, and are correcting them. Our cause is still justified! Ask Afghans & Iraqi's!

[Hugo]

Govt. cannot and will not spy on every citizen. Not enough money, time or manpower to do so.

Given the number of police states that have existed in history, that contention is patently ridiculous. Government can't spy on every citizen, but it can spy on 99% of them, and it can certainly terrorise the other 1% into silence.

If I obey the law, pay my taxes, vote and monitor the government like I do... What am I affraid of?

If you obey the law? Whose law, and to what extent? What if the growing security state demands the right to snoop through your bank account and credit history, to monitor your internet activities, to track the movements of your car, or even to insist that you wear a tracking device wherever you go?

Your promise to "monitor" the government sounds great at first glance, but when will you say, "too much"? What if others disagree? Any compromise on freedom/security is purely arbitrary opinion and thus indefensible.

I am willing to take that chance and sacrifice a little bit, than give an illegal terrorist a 'loophole' through our legal system to conduct another 9/11.

He who trades freedom for security shall receive neither. The fact is that you aren't getting security, you see, you're getting the promise of security from other individuals and, in exchange, you are giving them ever-increasing amounts of power and money. What happens if these individuals ever decide that you are the enemy? What if they decide that the most important issue is their continued domination, and a threat to security is something which compromises their power, rather than that which threatens the citizenry?

[BigDookie6]

Given the number of police states that have existed in history, that contention is patently ridiculous. Government can't spy on every citizen, but it can spy on 99% of them, and it can certainly terrorise the other 1% into silence.

Sure Hugo; hypothetically speaking. But that's not the case.

If you obey the law? Whose law, and to what extent? What if the growing security state demands the right to snoop through your bank account and credit history, to monitor your internet activities, to track the movements of your car, or even to insist that you wear a tracking device wherever you go?

Let them snoop. Just be waisting their time... which would lead me to believe that they do not have the interest, time, money, manpower to snoop through 99% of American citizens. I think you have it backward... It's the other 1% that should be worried, who probably intend to committ crime. If you do not like my "house rules" then feel free to leave!

Your promise to "monitor" the government sounds great at first glance, but when will you say, "too much"? What if others disagree? Any compromise on freedom/security is purely arbitrary opinion and thus indefensible.

Not everyone agrees obviously. But that's why we have the press, ACLU, legislature, Dems & Rep... "Checks & balances"

If the PA were to commit serious offenses, we will know.

He who trades freedom for security shall receive neither. The fact is that you aren't getting security, you see, you're getting the promise of security from other individuals and, in exchange, you are giving them ever-increasing amounts of power and money. What happens if these individuals ever decide that you are the enemy? What if they decide that the most important issue is their continued domination, and a threat to security is something which compromises their power, rather than that which threatens the citizenry?

What if they had the PA pre-9/11? Would we be discussing this?

[Guest eureka]

If you had the PA prior to September 11th., there would likely be civil war in the States now.

I don't think even Americans are so asleep that they would trade away their every belief for Nothing. It is fear that has allowed this: fear generated by the White House, not fear of anything tangible.

[BigDookie6]

If you had the PA prior to September 11th., there would likely be civil war in the States now.

I don't think even Americans are so asleep that they would trade away their every belief for Nothing. It is fear that has allowed this: fear generated by the White House, not fear of anything tangible.

Yeah, Eureka...

And Canada's an independent nation!

It's us "sleepy Americans" that keep you envious! Why don't you just move down here, obtain citizenship and vote? Then you would rate to criticize or debate OUR politics!

If your country had some real media outlets, then you wouldn't have to go online to get all of your news. Must be hard filtering through the crap you read! Or maybe "Uncle Canuk" is already watching you. Tapped your pc and now chooses what news it deems necesary for you to view. You guys get satellite cable up there yet?

[Guest eureka]

I am not really too interested in"your" politics as long as you keep them to yourselves. I do, however, have the right to debate and criticize your politics when they affect me and my country and other countries.

Your country is making the mistake of not learning from history and is reaping the same whirlwind that led to a century of misery for the world and a century of war that followed.

Your current administration is a dangerous blight on the human plant. It has set back democracy in the USA a century or so. It is attempting to export its faulty ideals to countries where your every value is alien - that is if we are to believe it is about freedom and democracy.

Your "freedom" is the freedom of the 19th. century liberals whose free markets and their impact on peoples around the world wreaked havoc and death from starvation and disease on a scale that has never been witnessed in recorded history.

I am not so sure that Kerry will be the answer. He suffers from the same arrogance in my opinion. He will, however, take some notice of world opinion. He does recognize that American power is not unlimited. He is intelligent enough to be able to change course if he should err on the scale that Bush has done.

[Hugo]

Let them snoop. Just be waisting their time... which would lead me to believe that they do not have the interest, time, money, manpower to snoop through 99% of American citizens.

OK, so obviously those examples I mentioned wouldn't be enough to outrage you. Let's consider another (it's hypothetical, but not outside the realms of possibility).

Let's say that, in the interests of security, the government is going to monitor voting. Instead of a secret ballot, we're going to issue voters ballots with their name and SSN at the top. Then we can monitor people who might be "traitors" or "security risks" - those who vote for the Communist Party, or the Islamic Jihad Party, or whatever.

Not that there's anything wrong with free votes, we're just checking up on people. If you don't do anything wrong, you have no reason to fear. Of course, this is assuming nobody in the electoral system would be tempted to sell such information. The media would probably be very interested in which celebrities voted for which party, and potential employers might be interested in applicants political affiliations.

We could take it a step further, and decide to detain anyone who votes in a dubious fashion as they leave the polling booth. Not to imprison them, of course, just to detain and interrogate them (under the Patriot Act, naturally, so they don't get habeas corpus, legal representation, the right to appeal to a court within 24 hours of being arrested, or the right to a trial by jury). We just want to find out if they're dangerous, or if they know anyone who is. Nobody innocent of wrongdoing need be afraid.

Sounds good?

If you do not like my "house rules" then feel free to leave!

So America is the government's house? They own it, they can tell people how to behave, or to get out?

How does that work? Does the Republican Party own the USA right now?

Not everyone agrees obviously. But that's why we have the press, ACLU, legislature, Dems & Rep... "Checks & balances"

If the PA were to commit serious offenses, we will know.

You hope. A lot of Germans never knew about the Final Solution until after the end of the war. Consider that most of the Patriot Act allows investigations and arrests to be carried out in secret, often without judicial oversight.

What if they had the PA pre-9/11? Would we be discussing this?

In history, each growth of American government power and intrusiveness has followed a war. The Civil War was followed by the economically active government, with the first national debt (still not repaid, to this day). WWI was followed by the embryonic welfare state and the economic interference that led to the Great Depression, WWII was followed by the completion of the welfare state, the Cold War led to McCarthyism and the Red Scare, and the War on Terror has become the excuse for the Patriot Act.

It's good, old-fashioned Machiavellian politics and Orwellian manipulation. Just distract the public with a foreign war, externalise the enemy, fool them into thinking you're protecting them, invoke nationalism and jingoism to get them to support your cause, demonise your enemy (Indian savages, Southern slavers, Hohenzollern butchers, Nazi warmongers, godless Commies, fanatical Islamists) and so forth.

It's the oldest game in the book, and it goes back to before the ancient Greeks - although they were the first culture to really perfect the kulturkampf and militaristic patriotism.

[BigDookie6]

Eureka wrote:

I am not really too interested in"your" politics as long as you keep them to yourselves.

What a contradiction! One minute you're bitchin about the U.S. not doing enough for the world, (and think you know what's best for Americans) then you bitch about the way we do things! You're never going to be happy. What a double standard! No wonder we choose and support to not want anything to do with the UN or Europe. Like you, they cannot make up their mind.

Your country is making the mistake of not learning from history and is reaping the same whirlwind that led to a century of misery for the world and a century of war that followed.

What are we not learning from history? Could you look back on the books for me and tell me how history defeated terrorism? We could've just dropped some "nukes" on the Mid East, taking the course of history. At least you would have had a valid argument that America is committing atrocities; Not the terrorists!

Your current administration is a dangerous blight on the human plant. It has set back democracy in the USA a century or so. It is attempting to export its faulty ideals to countries where your every value is alien - that is if we are to believe it is about freedom and democracy.

How can you even talk about freedom or democracy when you have never experienced it?

Set back democracy? How? Afghanistan held free elections for the first time; Iraq is soon to follow... We hold free elections. You're beating a dead horse sister!

Your "freedom" is the freedom of the 19th. century liberals whose free markets and their impact on peoples around the world wreaked havoc and death from starvation and disease on a scale that has never been witnessed in recorded history.

Could you explain this to me? I know I am dense, but WTF did you just say?

I am not so sure that Kerry will be the answer. He suffers from the same arrogance in my opinion. He will, however, take some notice of world opinion. He does recognize that American power is not unlimited. He is intelligent enough to be able to change course if he should err on the scale that Bush has done.

Which pile of crap do we want as our President?