 | | 
05-29-2003, 05:35 AM
|
#1 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Albany, Ga.
Posts: 1,063
| » 
And OUR FREEDOMS went bye bye
A short analysis of the Second Patriot Act here .
May I ask if you guys will tell me if this is a correct analysis of the bills being passed rignt now.
Does anyone agree? Disagree?
Vern
| 
|  | |
05-29-2003, 06:51 AM
|
#2 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Urbana, Illinois
Posts: 1,845
|
From ABC News: Quote:
According to what is in the draft, if adopted it would allow the Justice Department to wiretap a person for 15 days without a warrant; federal agents could secretly arrest people and provide no information to their family, the media or their attorney until charges are brought, no matter how long that took; and it would allow the government to strip Americans of their citizenship for even unknowingly helping a group that is connected to an organization deemed to be terrrorist.
It would also make it a crime for people subpoenaed in connection with an investigation being carried out under the Patriot Act to alert Congress to any possible abuses committed by federal agents.
| Does this sound like freedom to you?  Scary stuff.
__________________
Mark}--->8-8->
If you're not the lead dog, the scenery never changes.
| |
| | |
05-29-2003, 06:56 AM
|
#3 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: South Jersey
Posts: 3,081
| Quote: |
TOTAL POLICE STATE TAKEOVER
| That pretty much says it all!
...about the source of the article, that is.
| |
| | |
05-29-2003, 07:15 AM
|
#4 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Urbana, Illinois
Posts: 1,845
| osprey4, I agree the source of the article may be questionable, but the content of the draft of PA II is not. PA II, as it stands, represents the gravest risk to American freedoms since McCarthyism.
__________________
Mark}--->8-8->
If you're not the lead dog, the scenery never changes.
| |
| | |
05-29-2003, 07:29 AM
|
#5 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Ohio (transplanted f
Posts: 2,673
|
__________________
A word to the wise is usually unneccessary.
| |
| | |
05-29-2003, 08:42 AM
|
#6 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3
|
Should read: Quote: |
(terrorism protection) represents the gravest risk to American freedoms since McCarthyism (in the short term).
| At the core of the justice system is the due process doctrine for an alleged crime "it is better to let one quilty man go free than convict an innocent person". That procedure hasn't been erroded.
Since 9/11 it is necessary to hold, investigate, etc. many innocent people who fit a profile to prevent one or more terroists from committing an act that could cause massive damage in lives and property. There are privacy issues for citizens but the fereral government has above anything else an obligation and duty to protect its citizens.
Protect vs. Rights is the trade off. Mistakes made on the "rights" side of the equation can be corrected in a democratic society. McCarthyism has had no damaging side affects!
On the other side of the equation "protection", there is not an opportunity to correct mistakes. The cliche it is better to be safe than sorry applies. There is a war going on, a major terrorist act could cripple the economy and that could be a situation from which it would be very difficult to recover.
| |
| | |
05-29-2003, 09:15 AM
|
#7 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: inside the Beltway, outside the loop
Posts: 1,067
|
Just out of curiosity, max50, what's the practical difference between holding someone indefinitely in jail "preventively", and convicting and jailing him?
If you detained without trial everyone who was a potential criminal, only a few saints, catatonics and quadriplegics would be on the outside; and I'm not so sure about the quadriplegics. For that matter, a lot of saints would be in jail, too, because they have a history of causing trouble for the Establishment. (I'm sure you can think of an obvious example or two...)
| |
| | |
05-29-2003, 10:08 AM
|
#8 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Urbana, Illinois
Posts: 1,845
| Quote: |
McCarthyism has had no damaging side affects!
| I am completely baffled by that one. McCarthyism had tremendous effects on the willingness of people to speak their minds or associate freely with whomever they chose. McCarthyism is alive and well today. Speak out against the war or Bush's administration and you're instantly labelled unpatriotic or a "Saddam lover".
BTW, max50, you have no right to alter my statements and still call it a quote. Patriot Act II is more about government control grabbing than it is about terrorist protection. Taking away constitutionally guaranteed freedoms does NOT equal "protection". 
__________________
Mark}--->8-8->
If you're not the lead dog, the scenery never changes.
Last edited by M_Six; 05-29-2003 at 10:11 AM.
| |
| | |
05-29-2003, 12:10 PM
|
#9 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: sacramento ,ca
Posts: 3,176
| Quote: |
McCarthyism has had no damaging side affects!
| WOW
someone need's to go read there history books again
| |
| | |
05-29-2003, 12:18 PM
|
#10 (permalink)
| | Guest |
My one political commentary for the month....
I could care less about interpretations, just read the actual documentation. If PA2 passes, then we might as well change the Justice Department's name to KGB. No I am not kidding, as the DoJ will be allowed to perform activities that not even the KGB could have done at the height of the cold war!
Robert Richmond
| |
| | |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | | | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
| | | | Most Active Discussions  | | | | |
Recent Discussions | | | | | |
