Oh my! I actually agree with Gore on something? *shivers* This prole doesn’t very much like the Patriot Act...sometimes (key word sometimes)Marxism makes a lot of sense…

Does anyone have any stories about how the Patriot Act has personally infringed on their liberty?  Does anyone know anyone whose rights have been infringed upon?  In past wars industries were nationalized, consumer goods were rationed, and people had to give up some of their freedoms.  I�ve not heard of anyone (other than some assholes in Guantanamo) whose liberties have been infringed upon.

I lived and worked on military bases for many years.  When you enter a military installation, there is a sign that says they are allowed to search you and your vehicle AT ANY TIME while you�re on the installation.  That�s so no bad guys sneak on and do bad things.  Well though it�s difficult to comprehend for some people, we are at war NOW! 

I�ve heard many conflicting things about this stinking Patriot Act, so I guess I�ll read it and see for myself.  Stand by for issuance of my fatwah.

Since the Patriot Act is 342 pages of legal gibberish, I pulled up a synopsis on the Civil Disobedience web site. They say:

The USA PATRIOT Act ("Patriot Act,” “USAPA") affects several civil liberties and many of the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The right to privacy, the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, Seventh Amendment, and the Eighth Amendment are specifically violated. Arguments could be made for more as well

• Can someone show me where there is a “Right to Privacy” guaranteed in the Constitution? 
• I don’t understand how freedom of religion, speech, or the right to assemble are affected by the Patriot Act.  How are they affected?
  
• I can see some 4th Amendment issues (unreasonable searches and seizures)
• The 7th Amendment starts with these words:
  In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved�What does this have to do with our current situation?
• There definitely could be excessive bail/cruel and unusual punishment issues

Interesting how they didn’t cite the 5th Amendment which reads:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger

Does 3,000 people being killed and billions of dollars in economic loss count as public danger?

Nearly every time I drove through Louisiana on I-12 between Slidell and Baton Rogue, I or one of the guys I travel with, were pulled by the cops.  Most of the times it was for bogus reasons.  Their intent, I assume, was to catch drug runners.  I don’t too much care for being pulled over, but if it helps catch those jerks I can live with it.

My fatwah is�suck it up�I don’t see anything much to worry about (unless you’re Al Qaeda)

I’ve been teaching myself HTMLthis week, so I wanted to try it out here

I�ve not heard of anyone (other than some assholes in Guantanamo) whose liberties have been infringed upon.

And they are assholes because...the Bush administration has told you so? They have a great track record for both honesty and integrity there. Do you KNOW who is incarcerated in Guantanamo right now? If you do please contact Congress because they keep getting the run around whenever they try to get that information. Better yet see if you can get the reasons why they are incarcerated, or when they will get to speak to legal representation or family. In time I think we will probably find that Guantanamo is little more than an American concentration camp (sans gas chambers).

Do I know anyone directly affected by the provisions of the Patriot Act? How would I know? Unless they are arrested how would they know? Did you know that with a rubber stamped “search warrant” that a judge is REQUIRED to sign the Department of Homeland Security can enter your home and conduct a search without informing you they were ever there? That they can wiretap your phone for up to 72 hours on mere suspicion? That they can require the library to give them a list of your reading materials and that if the librarian tells you about it then the librarian can be arrested? All this Secret Squirrel Spy Vs Spy crap seems more KGB than USA. But what would you expect from a “president” that says :  If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator. (Dec. 18, 2000 - shortly after his contentious victory in the Supreme Court that resulted in his becoming president) Well he is half there...he’s a dick.

Can someone show me where there is a �Right to Privacy� guaranteed in the Constitution?

Probably not specifically, but let’s start with:

Article [IV.]
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.

I would probably follow that one up with:

Article [IX.]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Now I am no Constitutional scholar but I think this says in a nutshell that (article 4) no person shall be subjected to detention, search, seizure and should be able to expect that the same can be true of their home and possessions without a damn good reason and that the search will be restricted to specific things that the warrant holders believe they will find. I read that to say the government will stay the fuck out of my business unless they have a good reason to think I am breaking the law. If that is not enough the next article (article 9) says just in case we haven’t covered all the bases on what rights the citizens have the Constitution can not be used to deny the rights not listed. In that vein I claim my right to privacy under Article IX of the Constitution.

Does 3,000 people being killed and billions of dollars in economic loss count as public danger?

Sure it does, but how many people in Y2k (2000) America died from heart disease? Approximately 696990. How about Diabetes Mellitus? Approximately 67409. And just for shits and giggles how about Alzheimer’s disease? Approximately 49092. These are but a few of the horrible things out there that they have mortality stats for and as you can also plainly see far more people have died from them than by any act of terrorism (in the U.S.). How about some funding for these things? How about some suspensions of rights to help curb this axis of disease, I am sure we can pass an act supporting that now can’t we? However I think the question is should we.

My fatwah is�suck it up�I don�t see anything much to worry about (unless you�re Al Qaeda)

So translated you are saying you have nothing to worry about unless you are doing something wrong so just let them violate your rights. Sorry MildBill, I just cant do that. Maybe you can rationalize that the ends justify the means (catching drug dealers) but it is at odds with my picture of a free America. I will not allow an illegal search of my vehicle even if it means a trip to jail, I have nothing to hide but I would rather waste their time (and mine) than let them erode my rights and freedoms.

Being an obstinate jerk isn’t a right protected in the Constitution either, but I will continue to be one under Article IX. :X

I think this is one of those issues where it comes down to where we, as a society, want to draw the line.  Complete individual liberty could be as threatening to society as complete state control over individuals.

Personally, though, I fall on the same side as Eric.  Primarily because to do otherwise is only rational if you have a government that is looking out for your interests.  I don’t believe the philosophy of the people running our govt is beneficent.  I tend to see in their actions condescension, active hostility, and a non-stop struggle to accrue additional control over the general public.

I don’t think it’s an accident that we have, in general, a dramatically undereducated populace.  Politics has become a dirty word, and people are allergic to real debate.  As a people, we’ve turned over the reins to Michael Moores and Ann Coulters. 

There’s no way in hell I would tell that Canadian guy who got deported to Syria and tortured for ten months before he was released that he should “suck it up.” Apparently, he was innocent enough that they finally released him.  Now THAT surprises me.  I believe it’s entirely possible that if he had no family, and if his case had received no media attention, that he would be taking a dirtnap about now.

The govt. makes mistakes all the time-- innocent men are freed from prison due to DNA, but you can’t give them back the time they’ve lost, or, more importantly, undo the psychological damage that comes from living in an environment like that.

And you can’t “untorture” someone either, after you find out they really didn’t do anything.

And yes, the govt will inevitably trample on some individual rights when they go about their business-- but that doesn’t mean that we, as a people, should make it ever easier for them to do so, and remove all consequences for doing so.

On another note, (and I realize this post is just exploding), there is a huge potential for private abuse of the PA.  Businesses and private individuals are also given unprecedented levels of protection from prosecution if they violate someone’s rights, as long as they do so under the belief that they’re uncovering a possible terrorist threat.

The other day, a telemarketer called us at 7:30 am and my wife yelled at him and then hung up on him.  He called the cops and reported “screaming” at our residence.  Needless to say, my wife was already at work when the cops came knocking, but I got the telemarketer’s message loud and clear. 

You don’t think individuals might use the PA for similar purposes?

Nah, I say, let judges do their jobs-- let them evaluate for probable cause and then authorize searches and wiretaps.  I doubt they’d turn down too many of them.

Mild Bill, I’ll say it again: your mind is not your own, the Service took it away from you. I was going to respond to your ridiculous question but just couldn’t find the energy to do so.

You said:
“I lived and worked on military bases for many years. When you enter a military installation, there is a sign that says they are allowed to search you and your vehicle AT ANY TIME while you�re on the installation. That�s so no bad guys sneak on and do bad things. Well though it�s difficult to comprehend for some people, we are at war NOW!”

Just because you had to give up your civil liberties (while being paid to do so) it doesn’t mean those of us not in the service should be content to do so. You have always seemed to me to be permanently adversely affected by your stint in the service, and I still think you have been. How else can you explain the fact that you ask us to accept our liberties being greatly compromised simply because you had to do so to keep your nifty job.

We are “at war” because idiots who love to fight and control others put us in this situation.
I wish you didn’t respect the hawk mentality so much. It only serves to remind me that there are others like you still in the service and very much willing to create the very unstable and destructive scenarios they profess to be protecting us from.

Better yet read Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs and the Press which is “A searing account of the CIA’s 50-year long association with drug lords across the world, from Marseilles and Sicily, to Burma, Laos and Vietnam, to Latin America and Afghanistan. Read how the CIA’s backing of the opium lords in Afghanistan helped give rise to the Taliban and [ushered in] Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda terror network.”
Bottom line… you suck too much up, so suck up the fact that three states and 210 US cities have already passed ordinances or ballot initiatives to protect their citizens(26 million so far)from the Patriot Act. It isn’t as harmless a phenomenon as you seem to think and is being used to protect government secrecy for reasons far from national security concerns. You may think most of our countries leaders are wise and well intentioned, but you would be wrong in consideration of each more often than you would be right.

The Patriot Act seeks to create a police state not so far from the conditions of military control you once lived under. If we are fighting communism and tyranny, why are we moving toward a country with significant elements of both.

Infowars.com says “The second Patriot Act is a mirror image of powers that Julius Caesar and Adolf Hitler gave themselves. Whereas the First Patriot Act only gutted the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and seriously damaged the Seventh and the Tenth, the Second Patriot Act reorganizes the entire Federal government as well as many areas of state government under the dictatorial control of the Justice Department, the Office of Homeland Security and the FEMA NORTHCOM military command. The Domestic Security Enhancement Act 2003, also known as the Second Patriot Act is by its very structure the definition of dictatorship.”

If you want to imagine how sinister the Patriot Act might be, consider how many websites are disappearing which contained information regarding its intent and provisions. How can we fight that which we know nothing about?

Here’s a story from the Los Angeles Times, May 2nd 2003:

Feeling the Boot Heel of the Patriot Act
by Jason Halperin


Several weeks ago, my roommate Asher and I went to an Indian restaurant just off Times Square in the heart of midtown Manhattan. We helped ourselves to the buffet and sat down to begin eating.
Suddenly there was a terrible commotion and five police officers in bulletproof vests stormed down the stairs. They had their guns drawn and were pointing them indiscriminately at the restaurant staff and at us.
“Go to the back of the restaurant,” they yelled. I hesitated, lost in my own panic. “Did you not hear me? Go to the back and sit down,” they demanded. I complied and looked around at the other patrons. There were eight men including the waiter, all of South Asian descent and ranging from late teens to senior citizen. One of the officers pointed his gun in the waiter’s face and shouted: “Is there anyone else in the restaurant?” The waiter, terrified, gestured to the kitchen.
The police placed their fingers on the triggers of their guns and kicked open the kitchen doors. Shouts emanated from the kitchen and a few seconds later five Latino men crawled out on their hands and knees, guns pointed at them.
After patting us all down, the five officers seated us at two tables. As they continued to kick open doors to closets and restrooms with their fingers glued to their triggers, officials in business suits emerged from the stairwell. Two walked over to our table and identified themselves as agents of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Homeland Security Department.
Having some limited knowledge of the rights afforded to U.S. citizens, I asked why we were being held. The INS agent said we would be released once they confirmed that there were no outstanding warrants against us and our immigration status was OK.
In pre-9/11 America, the legality of this would have been questionable. After all, the 4th Amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. “
“You have no right to hold us,” said Asher. But they explained that they did: This was a homeland security investigation under the authority of the Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act was passed into law on Oct. 26, 2001, in order to facilitate the post-9/11 crackdown on terrorism. Among the unprecedented rights it grants to the federal government are the right to wiretap or detain without a warrant. As I quickly discovered, the right to an attorney has been fudged as well. When I asked to speak to a lawyer, the INS official told me I did have the right to a lawyer but I would have to be taken to the station for security clearance before being granted one. When I asked how long that would take, he replied with a coy smile: “Maybe a day, maybe a week, maybe a month.”
We insisted that we had every right to leave and were going to do so. One of the police officers, with his hand on his gun, taunted: “Go ahead and leave, just go ahead.” We remained seated.
Our IDs were taken. I was questioned why my license was from out of state and asked whether I had “something to hide.” The police continued to hassle the kitchen workers, demanding licenses and dates of birth. One of the kitchen workers was shaking and kept providing the day’s date � March 20, 2003 � over and over.
As I continued to press for legal counsel, a female officer put her finger in my face. “We are at war, we are at war and this is for your safety,” she exclaimed. As she walked away from the table, she continued to repeat it to herself. “We are at war, we are at war; how can they not understand this?”

I most certainly understand that we are at war, and that we need some measure of security in times like these. But I also understand that the freedoms in the Constitution were meant specifically for times like these.

After an hour and a half, the INS agent returned our licenses. An officer escorted us out. Before we left, the INS agent apologized.
Among the customers, there were four taxi drivers, two students, one newspaper salesman. Several said they were U.S. citizens. I doubt they received apologies. Nor have the hundreds of immigrants being held without charge. Apparently, this type of treatment is acceptable.

Three days after the incident, I phoned the restaurant. The owner was nervous, embarrassed and did not want to talk about it. But I managed to ascertain that the whole thing had been one giant mistake.
A mistake. Loaded guns pointed in faces, people made to crawl, police officers kicking in doors, taunting, keeping their fingers on the trigger even after the situation was under control. A mistake.
And, according to the ACLU, a perfectly legal one, thanks to the Patriot Act.

(Jason Halperin lives in New York City.)

This is only the beginning. Imagine what life will be like after 10 or 20 years of acquiescence.

Interfaith Communities United For Justice and Peace says
The PATRIOT Act and certain Executive Orders:

Break the political backs of the judiciary and legislative branches of government.

Allow random arrests and detention without hearings or trials for anyone or any group designated by the President. Retroactive Prosecution, too!

Allow the concealment of Presidential records. They permit secret “Military Tribunals” for presidentially-designated “terrorists”.

Legalize “sneak-n-peek” searches and seizures. They allow the unlawful infiltration and surveillance of legal domestic, religious, labor and political organizations.

Allow the wholesale surveillance of private citizens, private business records and other materials without proof of probable cause.

Destroy all e-mail and internet privacy.

Perhaps everything you wrote was simply your attempt to be controversial and you were actually joking. In that case I have to say I fail to see the humor.

A true patriot would do everything they can to cripple and kill this act because it is counter to everything our fathers and grandfathers fought wars to protect. Everything WE served in the military to protect MildBill.

I may be a traitorous liberal but I love my country enough to work against those who would destroy it. Both foreign and domestic.

Muhahahaha

I knew I could stir things up�things have been so dead lately.  I agree that the Patriot Act is a thing we should be concerned with.  I do not get too upset however over the right to trial for illegal combatants.  Recall that according to the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) you give up many rights when you violate its provisions.

I like some of Eric�s flaming left-wing logic though:

Sure it does, but how many people in Y2k (2000) America died from heart disease? Approximately 696990. How about Diabetes Mellitus? Approximately 67409. And just for shits and giggles how about Alzheimer�s disease? Approximately 49092. These are but a few of the horrible things out there that they have mortality stats for and as you can also plainly see far more people have died from them than by any act of terrorism (in the U.S.).

If I was the Attorney General I would swear out a warrant against those pesky diseases and charge them with whatever the federal equivalent to murder is.  While we�re at it, we need to swear out a warrant for melanoma and his brazen accomplice the SUN!!!

Brockster said:

Just because you had to give up your civil liberties (while being paid to do so) it doesn�t mean those of us not in the service should be content to do so.

No Brock actually I could see an overriding reason for the necessity to put the Constitution aside in the interest of security.  And getting paid DOES NOT factor in.  The sign says ANYONE entering a military facility is subject to search�not just those who get paid!

I wish you didn�t respect the hawk mentality so much. It only serves to remind me that there are others like you still in the service and very much willing to create the very unstable and destructive scenarios they profess to be protecting us from.

Another of your extremely illogical conclusions.  As I�ve tried to explain to you a bazillion times, the military does not make national policy.  No one in the military CREATED the current situation in Iraq.

The Patriot Act seeks to create a police state not so far from the conditions of military control you once lived under.

Sorry, but I�m laughing my ass off right now.  I experienced none of this Nazi-style �military control� you are citing.  The only time I�ve ever seen any Draconian type measure taken is when I was involved in �new cue lure� weapons operations.

If you want to imagine how sinister the Patriot Act might be, consider how many websites are disappearing which contained information regarding its intent and provisions. How can we fight that which we know nothing about?

That last sentence is very interesting: I know nothing about the Patriot Act, therefore it�s sinister!  I typed �patriot act full text� in Google and got 95,000 hits.  I don�t know anything about the websites disappearing, but if that makes for a good conspiracy theory, press on.  It�s probably those military guys that go around starting wars to satisfy their blood lust.

From your article about the restaurant, t seems the cops may have acted inappropriately.  �What if� the guys in the restaurant �were� terrorists and �what if� the cops just let them go?  Nobody would raise a stink about that I�m sure!  When people are taken hostage in a bank robbery type scenario, the cops treat everyone as the perpetrator until they can figure out who is who.  It seems to make sense to me.

This cracks me up (but only because I�m evil):

We insisted that we had every right to leave and were going to do so. One of the police officers, with his hand on his gun, taunted: �Go ahead and leave, just go ahead.� We remained seated.

�Sir, oh sir. we are American citizens and the Constitution says we don�t have to stay here�.  That would be like me saying,� Sir, those nuclear weapons were paid for with my tax money and I have the right to inspect them”.  I�d pay money to see that! 

Perhaps everything you wrote was simply your attempt to be controversial and you were actually joking. In that case I have to say I fail to see the humor.

For the most part that�s true, but dammit man is it my fault you don�t see my comic genius!

MB, I’m afraid I don’t see any real problem with Eric’s flaming left wing logic.

Three thousand people dead, all at the same time is a tragedy, no doubt.  But more importantly, it’s a DRAMATIC tragedy-- the kind of tragedy that can be used.  And it is being used.  It’s being used to funnel more and more money into military and police operations.  In terms of the problems confronting this nation, increasing the military budget so dramatically is like putting a tourniquet on a cut finger-- and not being able to spare a bandaid for the gut wound.  The govt. may be perfectly healthy, but I think the American people are about to go into shock. 

And your personal experiences with relatively upstanding members of law enforcement do not necessarily extend to the rest of the American citizenry.  I’ve been in court and heard police officers tell blatant lies.  I’ve worked for the California Dept. of Corrections, and I’ve seen the way the PIO’s “spin” the incidents where prisoners were used for target practice at Pelican Bay.

Putting a bunch of guys in uniform, arming them, and then telling them that they’re the “good guys” seems to create some dangerous psychological effects.  And I’m not talking about just the military here, where there are plenty of grunts who just want to do their bit and get out.  I’m talking about cops and correctional officers. 

The last thing we need, as a society, is to be so “grateful” for the “protection” we’re receiving that we don’t ever question how that protection is provided. 

I think the analogies that you’re drawing between being pulled over by the police, and the provisions of the patriot act are a bit unbalanced.  In one, the police can search your car and delay you for a few minutes.  In the other, they can deport you to another country to be tortured.

And telling a police officer that he doesn’t have the right to detain you may be pointless, and risky, but it’s not on the same level as personally demanding to inspect a nuclear silo. 

Again, it’s a question of where you draw the line-- some 2nd amendment freaks think they really are Constitutionally guaranteed the right to stockpile RPGs.

I hope you’re just trying to be inflammatory, MB, (and I can understand why, as things have gotten a little slow with the absence of DB and Hires *sigh* Was it something we said?) but I get the feeling that you draw the line pretty darn close to where our new govt. would like to draw it.

And I say that if we, as a people, don’t insist that the line be moved back to a “reasonable” place, well, we’ll get the government we deserve--
as we so often do.

Oh, sorry for the double dipping, here, I just wanted to give a shout out to the librarians.

Yeah, you know who you are, and I love you guys!  Woot!

:hugs:

I will touch on my faulty left wing logic in a second, but This just jumped off the screen at me:

�What if� the guys in the restaurant �were� terrorists and �what if� the cops just let them go? Nobody would raise a stink about that I�m sure!

And what if there is a god, do you really want to risk you’re immortal soul? Better that you err to the side of caution because if you are wrong it means eternity in the oven. I have agreed with you in the past when you have pointed out the imbecility of Pascal’s wager but the above statement seems to be the same thing applied to national defense. What if they were alien replicants, or tasty fruit pies, or super intelligent mice?

What if they were innocent? Turns out they were. So what if the actions of Homeland Security are eroding our freedoms and stripping us of our rights? Got to break a few eggs to make an omelet eh. We could also march the citizenry off to extermination depots, I am sure you would get a few terrorists that way too but the price would be too fucking high. At least to those of us with our faulty left wing logic...better to kill a thousand innocent men than let one terrorist escape.

Now to my logic - You posit that 3000 dead citizens is a public danger. In contrast I submitted that, in the three examples I cited, approximately 813491 citizens died in one year from disease. That is 271 times a greater threat than terrorism in any given year. Logically then it is a greater threat and should be deserving of greater attention and treated far more seriously. You can mock me by charging those pesky diseases with murder but are the people who die of disease any less dead? Do their families grieve less than the 9/11 victims? Is it less of a tragedy to those who love them just because it was not at the hands of man that they died?

How about how many people die of exposure to the elements , hunger, or violence due to homelessness? I submit that our lack of caring about our fellow man allows this to happen, so is that more or less a public danger? How about those who die or are crippled from chemical poisoning either from working in a plant, live downwind from a plant, or using a product not sufficiently tested (or in many cases known to be dangerous but covered up)? Lots of people harmed or killed so a few can make a profit, is it or is it not more of a public danger? The Enron debacle, the Mutual fund scandal, the invasion of Iraq based on the lie of WOMD...there is an endless supply of public dangers brought about by other men. Is this a better apples to apples comparison or is my logic still faulty? Thousands dead, billions stolen, seems to meet the criteria.

But I admit, I am a left wing nut-case so I am probably wrong.

“super intelligent mice”

Pinky: What are we doing tomorrow Brain?
Brain: The same thing we do every night, Pinky, try to take over the world!

(Now THAT is a threat to national security!)

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”—Marcus Tullius Cicero

How profound.  I’ve always liked Cicero.

But who are the traitors?  Those leftist pinkos who would risk the infiltration of our great nation by the “evil ones” by insisting on the sanctity of their own individual freedoms?

Or the people who would destroy individual liberty by by eliminating all that America stands for, in order to protect what America stands for?

Hmmmm.  Without context, even Cicero is relative.

And if you are calling me a traitor I will snap the plastic $1.59 made in Taiwan flag off of your vehicle and shove it so far up your ass it will tickle your brain. You can accuse me of a lot of things but never question my love of country. I love it enough to hold the government accountable for their actions, to suffer the scorn of false patriots rallying around their corrupt party leadership, and work to fix the broken bits.

I certainly hope you didn’t come here to make baseless and offensive accusations. If not accept my apologies for the preceding, if so pray you never make the mistake of accusing me of treason in earshot.

If I refer to myself as a traitor it is in mocking reference to scum like Ann Coulter or Bill O’Reilly and their warped venomous world view. I can do that because I know it is untrue.

I see it as a corrupt government’s desire to create a gestapo style control over the populace while giving the means an honorable title to make it most palatable. Still, a steaming bowl of shit is only that, no matter what you call it. So Mild Bill, you can have my serving too. I won’t be consuming it willingly.

Reminds me of the work by those guys who come up with those ridiculous names for our various invasions like Operation Dessert Storm, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, Noble Eagle etc.

When I mentioned you had to give up your civil liberties (while being paid to do so) it doesn�t mean those of us not in the service should be content to do so, you responded:

“No Brock actually I could see an overriding reason for the necessity to put the Constitution aside in the interest of security. And getting paid DOES NOT factor in. The sign says ANYONE entering a military facility is subject to search�not just those who get paid!”

The very reason you joined the military was because of the pay, education and career opportunities it afforded you. Also, I have no problem with a military base having the need to search me and my vehicle or bags when I enter it. I do have a problem with the local police, or any other authority saying they will search my person, belongings or residence without probable cause or warrant. I don’t live on a military base...yet. Too if you would put aside the Constitution so frivolously, you must not have joined the military due to a desire to defend it.

You said : “As I�ve tried to explain to you a bazillion times, the military does not make national policy. No one in the military CREATED the current situation in Iraq.”

Without the muscle to back up declarations of war or Patriot Acts, those in power have no power. Our military forces and police provide the teeth of the bite. The military and police make national policy possible and enforceable.

Jennifer Van Bergen, writing for the Truthout*Issues website says: 
“There is no way that the USA Patriot Act came into existence solely in response to September 11th. In fact, it is clear from prior legislative and case history that law enforcement and intelligence have been trying for many years to obtain these powers. It is only the unreasoning “bunker mentality” that followed September 11th that allowed its planners to pass it.
One provision, [of the Patriot Act]… merely amends the words of an earlier act, which had read “the purpose,” to read “a significant purpose.” What difference could that tiny change make? It opens the door for the FBI to evade the probable cause warrant requirement in criminal investigations whenever the FBI decides the information might have “a significant purpose” in an intelligence investigation. No court can intervene.
In other words, the legal protection that a court must determine that there is probable cause of criminal activity before a search or seizure can be made is totally discarded here. If the FBI thinks the information might contribute to an investigation, whatever the target�s activity might be, legal or not, the FBI can simply go search and seize. (And under the new “sneak and peek” provisions, they can do so without you ever knowing it.)
Notice also that this clause mixes foreign intelligence gathering with domestic criminal investigation, allowing the FBI to spy on Americans whom no court has determined have done anything wrong.
Finally, this information, under another provision of the Act, can now be shared with the CIA, in violation of its charter, which bars it from engaging in domestic spying.”

In regard to passage of the Patriot Act, the House endorsed the bill 357-to-66, followed by a 98-to-1 result in the Senate, with only Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) in opposition.
“Congress’ so-called deliberative process was reduced to this: Closed-door negotiations; no conference committee; no committee reports; no final hearing at which opponents could testify; not even an opportunity for most of the legislators to read the 131 single-spaced pages about to become law. Indeed, for part of the time, both the House and Senate were closed because of the anthrax scare; congressional staffers weren’t able to access their working papers...In effect, our government has exploited the events of Sept. 11 to impose national police powers that skirt time-honored constraints on the state. The executive branch will not always wield its new powers in the service of ends that Americans find congenial. Better that the government be shackled by the chains of the Constitution.
Such laws must contain sunset clauses; that is, the law should expire automatically within a short time of enactment - thus imposing on government the continuing obligation to justify its intrusions. In this instance, the Bush Administration rejected any sunset provision whatsoever. Congress demurred, and insisted on including such a provision; but it applied only to new wiretap and surveillance powers, not to the whole bill. Moreover, the sunset date was fixed at Dec. 31, 2005 - more than four years after passage of the legislation. Plainly, a shorter time frame - one year, or two years at most - would have been appropriate. If the emergency persisted, Congress and the president could reenact the law. Perhaps worst of all, under Section 213 of the Act, secret “sneak and peek” searches of physical property will be condoned in routine criminal investigations. Those searches can be conducted without knowledge of the property owner until a “reasonable” time after the search has occurred. No knowledge means no opportunity to contest the validity of the search, including such obvious infractions as rummaging through office drawers when the warrant authorizes a garage search, or even searching the wrong address.”

Source: the Cato Institute “The USA Patriot Act: We Deserve Better”.

Findlaw’s Legal Commentary notes that �Admiral Poindexter’s proposed Total Information Awareness (TIA) program, which sought to build data profiles of all Americans, sparked a wide public outcry. Congress recently warned against using TIA as a tool against US citizens. Nevertheless, Patriot II, as draft by the Attorney General and his staff, would begin to make TIA the law.
For instance, under Patriot II, federal agents would not need a subpoena or obtain a court order to access our consumer credit reports. This provision would open the wedge for TIA to be implemented through a huge database. Our credit reports are repositories of a great deal of sensitive information - from our employment history to where we shop, borrow and transact.
To see the information, the feds would only have to certify that they will use the information “in connection with their duties to enforce federal law.” Note that they would not have to certify that the person whose information was accessed was suspected of terrorism, or indeed, any other crime. And no one would be notified that their records had been accessed. When a commercial entity requests a consumer’s credit report, a note is made in the consumer’s file alerting him to this fact.�

John Ashcroft has been touring the country defending Patriot Act II , or the Domestic Security Enhancement Act, to law enforcement personnel. �Congress itself, strikingly, appears to have played little or no part in Patriot II’s drafting (though it seems that Speaker of the House Hastert was, at least, given the opportunity to review the draft�, as was Vice President Cheney.)� Source: Findlaw’s.

Today while I was watching Now with Bill Moyers on PBS, one of his guests (a Republican Congressman) was explaining how the Bush Administration, not wanting to face a fight over Patriot II is tacking hundreds of amendments onto hundreds of bills going through Congress in an effort to sneak them through. Apparently this is not all that uncommon a way to do business on the hill, makes me real proud. If the Act is so benign why all the underhanded tricks? If it is a good thing for America then let Americans read it, digest it, and then let their representatives know how they want them to vote on it!

If the Patriot Act II is such a good thing why are they so damn afraid to let it be judged on its merits? Do not let this continue without a fight! Contact your representatives and let them know how you feel about this particular poison pill. Please do not wait until the next election before you decide to get political.