More Gov't Abuses Within Patriot Act

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by wkmac, Mar 11, 2007.

  1. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Patriot Act is loved, hated, misunderstood or met with "who cares, give me another beer" but it depends on your political views where you stand. Some argue that it's because of the Patriot Act that we've not seen any further acts since 911 within the US and whether that is the reason or not I'm sure we all hope that claim can continue on whether it be true or not.

    That said, this past week the DOJ and the FBI admitted more abuses by the FBI were found and that this was made public when announced by the US Attorney General.
    Gonzales, Mueller admit FBI broke law - Yahoo! News

    I believe the words used were "broke the law" which would suggest some real serious offenses took place. Time and more detail may or may not bear this out. This also is not the first time in recent for this to happen as something similar took place in 2005' as seen in this Washington Post story. FBI Papers Indicate Intelligence Violations

    Many people have expressed concerns about the Patriot Act and the potential for abuse and many of those same people have been blown off under various political veils of opportunity. The vast majority of common sense thinking people on all sides of the issue agree that the ability for the various law enforcement agencies to stay ahead of these loonies is important but at the same time it's also important that they not trample and walk over and set legal precedent for future ramifications the very essense of what is the American system of liberty for each and every citizen out there.

  2. CTOTH

    CTOTH Not retired, just tired

    Does this come as a surprise to anyone?
  3. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    I'm curious to see what the opinions are of those who support the Patriot Act, especially the folks here who in the past have vocally spoken out in support. Does any of this matter to them or are they of the opinion to swipe it away and declare, "full steam ahead!" If that be the case, what scenario would it take for you to rethink or even change your support of the Act?

    No right or wrong answer IMO but just curious as to what your thinking on it is at this moment. Thanks ahead of time for your comments. Look forward to reading them.
  4. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    wkmac....I don't want to get pounced on, but here's my feelings on this matter....

    Do whatever it takes to keep me safe.....that includes racial profiling at the airports (that old "walks like a duck" etc. thing). Spy on people, listen to phone calls, whatever. If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

    I don't care if some people's rights are stepped on a bit or if it causes some interruption or irritation in their lives. If that makes me unfeeling, then so be it.

    Oh boy, I'm probably going to regret stating my opinion here, but that's just how I feel.....and I know I'm not alone!!
    Screw the ACLU !!
  5. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Hey More, I may disagree but I won't pounce at all. What would be your limit to this? Is there a "gov't has gone to far now" in this equation for you or are you in the name of security willing to let them go as far as they need to in order to "get the job done!"

    Remember, I said from me there's no right or wrong answer. I'm just interested in light of these articles if those who support the Patriot Act have a limit or are willing to let it go as far as it needs to in order that they feel safe. Thanks for your honesty and the courage to say it like you see it!
  6. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    Larry the cable guy sums it up for me.....

    Git 'er done !! :thumbup1:
  7. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    I agree with Moreluck. Better safe then sorry.
  8. Slothrop

    Slothrop Member

    1) Please see Ben Franklin re: Safety and Liberty

    2) Please see Timothy McVeigh

    Gov't spying and abuse of power can not keep anyone safe from a terrorist act.
  9. Sammie

    Sammie Well-Known Member

    Love the car in your picture, by the way! (I have my own Oscar and Meyer, miniature dachshunds.)

    I support the Patriot Act -

    Bush is trying to protect this country and no matter who is in
    office at point in history, people aren't going to agree with how this is to be done.

    Unfortunately it took this tragedy to bring cooperation between the FBI and the CIA, which I feel the Patriot Act was instrumental with. Much as the Columbine tragedy here brought cooperation between law enforcement agencies and school systems that weren't in place prior to.

    I don't feel our Fourth Amendment rights are being compromised under the circumstances. We have to be
    reasonable here in order to remain safe.

    If the powers that be make note that you're excessive in using the web to look up in depth information on Al Quaida, if you're suddenly involved with enormous financial transactions,
    should "Big Brother" give you a second glance? Maybe.

    Keep in mind that the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) was in place long before the Patriot Act; where law enforcement can check one's bank statements without probable cause. (To filter out money laundering). So in that respect, the Patriot Act is nothing new.
  10. canon

    canon Member


    According to Minsky, the original did not say They that can, it said They that would as it shows in the wikipedia post above. Also, "obtain" was originally "purchase".

    Maybe this isn't really the route you wanted to go.

    Oklahoma City Bombing: April 19, 1995
    Patriot Act: October 26, 2001.

    Do you see a difference between "safe" and "safer"?

    I'll have to side with moreluck on this one. You can stew relatively safe tho, that's one of your rights currently being protected. Granted, with enough determination, eventually some terrorst group will get thru. Probably like they did last time: exploiting the very freedoms they seek to destroy. Maybe someone in the govt is snickering at us right now... but that's ok with me.
  11. CTOTH

    CTOTH Not retired, just tired

    Maybe we should send an agent to every citizen's home to observe. You must feed and shelter this man.
  12. canon

    canon Member

    That's just a little bit silly. Would be much easier to brand barcodes on our forheads and put microchips under our skin while we all wear ankle bracelets with built in gps units.

    But when they're talking about monitoring phone conversations, they really don't need an agent physically standing at each phone in america.
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2007
  13. CTOTH

    CTOTH Not retired, just tired

    Sounds rediculous but that's where we are headed.
    Instead of tapping everyone's phone line, why don't we secure our borders? Hell, do both, I don't care! But don't tell me I'm safe because the FBI is monitoring my phone conversations, when Osama bin Laden, himself, can waltz in, on foot, right through Mexico or Canada.
    Why? Just so Walmart's stock price will rise another $0.30 a share.
  14. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    I want to bring up the same question Canon did..."Do you see a difference between safe and safer?" So yeah, you are, WE all are, safer. I do agree we'd be safer if the border was closed.
  15. CTOTH

    CTOTH Not retired, just tired

    Yes, I see and understand the difference between safe and safer. Do I feel "safer" because the FBI has the authority to tap my phone without a warrant? No. I actually feel less safe. We have officials in our goverment that have pursued young children online with sexual intent and you want to give them the authority to tap your phone without first obtaining a warrant. That's absolutely ludicrous.

    Why exclude safest from your grammar lesson? Afterall, shouldn't safest be our ultimate goal.
  16. Slothrop

    Slothrop Member


    Timothy McVeigh was brought up in reference to Morelucks desire for racial profiling.

    Upon doing a bit of research, I have to admit that a lack of liberty does indeed serve as a deterrent to terrorism. China has only experienced terror related incidents in one area, Xinjiang.

    Russia has not fared as well, but dissent is crushed there quicker than at the Browncafe.
  17. SeniorGeek

    SeniorGeek Below the Line

    Please do not take it personally. I will not pounce on you, I will pounce on the statements:
    If we take a look at those who committed acts of terrorism in the US - The Haymarket Riots, the 1920 bombing of Wall Street, The Weather Underground, poisoned Tylenol, Oklahoma City bombing, Symbionese Liberation Army, Unabomber, the Birmingham Church Bombing of 1963, Earth First!, Al Queda, Lucas Helder, George Metesky.... The profile should be male, largely white, mostly working-class (but intellectuals are not to be ignored), twenties to middle-aged.

    I apologize for running incidents, individuals and groups all together. (I make a special apology to anyone who feels slighted because I left them off the list: I am so very sorry!)

    Of course the terrorists will figure out that they can avoid detection with the elderly lady in a wheelchair disguise.
    What happens when the definition of "wrong" changes? What happens when something you already own becomes contraband? With unlimited surveillance, we can come much closer to 100% enforcement of the letter of every law.
    If you were really unfeeling, you would not be worried about someone pouncing on what you have said.

    When you say that you don't care if some peoples rights are stepped on, do you include yourself in the "some people", or are you thinking it would always be somebody else?

    Your use of "...a bit..." and "...some interruption or irritation..." makes it appear that you think that there should be limits. The question is reduced to one of where to draw the line. You appear to want to move the line.
    Those two sentences do not appear to go together. But there they are.:wink:
  18. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    First of all, I don't know how to put the little quotes in the little boxes to address every point individually. I believe what I posted earlier needs no further explaining.... but I have an additional observation.

    In a city close by, there is a large population of Iranian people. Why is it they always call themselves a Persian Community? Duh, there is no Persia. Even they are ashamed to say they are Iranian.

    I don't envision the definition of "wrong" changing.......sounds like a Clinton quote to me.

    If I'm doing something wrong, then they can come and get me.

    And I still put the ACLU right up there with PETA.....both useless!
  19. Sammie

    Sammie Well-Known Member

    Sorry I'm getting off the beaten path here but couldn't sit this one out. Can't believe what I just read.

    Many countries and languages have different names in other languages. The Germans call their country Deutschland, Americans call it Germany.

    In 1935, the Shah of Iran decided (terrible decision...) that Persia was to be called Iran because of diplomatic ties; although Winston Churchill preferred the name Persia to remain in use. In 1949 Iran decided that the names Iran and Persia could both be used.

    The West still refers to this land as Persia.

    Persian is the official language of Persia/Iran, Tajikistan and
  20. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    This must make it difficult for geography students in grade school.

    Why don't we just call a country anything we want? Countries have names. To me, Persia went away a long time ago and Iran is the current name of this country in English. I only speak English and Until they change it to something's Iran.

    Deutschland is what Germans call Germany in their language. In English, it's Germany.

    So, what's Farsi....pig latin??