Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
It seemed to me that Gore, speaking about his disdain for the Patriot Act, came across as either sanctimonious, or hypocritical. I'm at a loss to decide.
corplinx
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 8,952
I think gore is playing the stooge here. I heard his speech and it was 50 percent memes and 50 percent strawmen. Zero substance.
Gore is testing the water for a flanking move. The democrat party fears that the economy will rebound enough that it won't be an issue and they know that Iraq's rebuilding has been nothing short of astronimical. What's left to attack?
The most unlikable member of the administration and his policy. You are going to hear strawmen, memes, misinformation, and outright lies most likely as the democrat party goes for broke and wedges its campaign as one against the evil John Ashcroft's police state. "Bush is bad on civil liberties" has nearly become an accepted meme by most people I know who don't read newspapers. It sticks.
Gore is testing the water for a flanking move. The democrat party fears that the economy will rebound enough that it won't be an issue and they know that Iraq's rebuilding has been nothing short of astronimical. What's left to attack?
The most unlikable member of the administration and his policy. You are going to hear strawmen, memes, misinformation, and outright lies most likely as the democrat party goes for broke and wedges its campaign as one against the evil John Ashcroft's police state. "Bush is bad on civil liberties" has nearly become an accepted meme by most people I know who don't read newspapers. It sticks.
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
I'm still trying to figure that part out. We have this law which now permits the government to ferret out what you read at the library. (I thought if you had reasonable cause, that could already be done. Or maybe I'm wrong.) It seems to allow unlimited searches, but we're not sure. It might allow the government to check into what's on your computer, without a warrant, but again, we don't know. I've got plenty to read about it from a host of sources, (the only thing they agree on is that it dies after a time), BUT, I've no idea after all I've read, including the law itself, precisely what it was supposed to address that wasn't already in the law itself.
You're right. I don't like Gore. I sure as hell don't like Bush, either, SG. But out of the two of them, I'm guessing we're better off with Bush for the moment. (Reminds me that I borrowed a 1960 campaign slogan and stuck it on my car: Thank God only one of them can win!) The problem for me with Bush is that he's got Ashcroft as AG. (And listening to his take on what needs to be done simply leaves me reaching for the Maalox.)
If you can refer me to a site which makes it clear, (Hell, even the Cato Institute seems muddled about this), let me know. I'm still reading up on it.
You're right. I don't like Gore. I sure as hell don't like Bush, either, SG. But out of the two of them, I'm guessing we're better off with Bush for the moment. (Reminds me that I borrowed a 1960 campaign slogan and stuck it on my car: Thank God only one of them can win!) The problem for me with Bush is that he's got Ashcroft as AG. (And listening to his take on what needs to be done simply leaves me reaching for the Maalox.)
If you can refer me to a site which makes it clear, (Hell, even the Cato Institute seems muddled about this), let me know. I'm still reading up on it.
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
Then again, it helps to use the "search" feature. 
More Surveillance Equals Less Liberty: Patriot Act reduces privacy, undercuts judicial review
by Timothy Lynch
September 10, 2003
Timothy Lynch is director of the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice.
Now that two years have passed since the trauma of the Sept. 11 catastrophe, it is a good time to take a step back from the politics of the moment and take stock as to how our policymakers have responded to the threat posed by terrorism.
Sending American soldiers to Afghanistan was a decisive move by President Bush — because it was going right to the root of the problem, which is Osama bin Laden, his elite henchmen and his training camps.
The war on the home front also has been aggressive but in many ways misguided.
The assumption has been that there was simply too much liberty and privacy in America — and that federal law-enforcement agencies did not have enough power. To remedy that perceived problem, policymakers rushed the USA Patriot Act into law.
The Patriot Act was designed to reduce privacy and increase security. It has succeeded in at least reducing privacy.
Financial privacy is essentially gone. The feds have turned banks, brokerage houses, insurers and other financial institutions into state informers. Those firms must notify the Treasury Department about "suspicious" transactions, and the government can subpoena your checking-account records even if there is no evidence of wrongdoing.
Even though the feds were notified about several of hijacker Mohammed Atta's financial transactions before Sept. 11, no action was taken.
But in the logic of the public sector, that failure means the government was hobbled by insufficient money and insufficient power. Thus, the Treasury Department is now engaging in more surveillance.
Attorney General John Ashcroft says that all of the "safeguards of our Constitution" have been honored. But the Constitution's most vital safeguard is the principle of the separation of powers, and it has been undermined repeatedly.
One of the most odious provisions of the Patriot Act is known as Section 215.
That provision empowers FBI agents to demand things from people in terrorism-related investigations.
Ashcroft and conservative analysts claim that the Patriot Act operates in a similar fashion to ordinary search warrants so there is nothing to worry about. Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute, for example, says, "The FBI can do nothing under Section 215 without the approval of a federal court."
In truth, the act creates a façade of judicial review. Here is the pertinent language: "Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter" the order.
(More at www.cato.org)
More Surveillance Equals Less Liberty: Patriot Act reduces privacy, undercuts judicial review
by Timothy Lynch
September 10, 2003
Timothy Lynch is director of the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice.
Now that two years have passed since the trauma of the Sept. 11 catastrophe, it is a good time to take a step back from the politics of the moment and take stock as to how our policymakers have responded to the threat posed by terrorism.
Sending American soldiers to Afghanistan was a decisive move by President Bush — because it was going right to the root of the problem, which is Osama bin Laden, his elite henchmen and his training camps.
The war on the home front also has been aggressive but in many ways misguided.
The assumption has been that there was simply too much liberty and privacy in America — and that federal law-enforcement agencies did not have enough power. To remedy that perceived problem, policymakers rushed the USA Patriot Act into law.
The Patriot Act was designed to reduce privacy and increase security. It has succeeded in at least reducing privacy.
Financial privacy is essentially gone. The feds have turned banks, brokerage houses, insurers and other financial institutions into state informers. Those firms must notify the Treasury Department about "suspicious" transactions, and the government can subpoena your checking-account records even if there is no evidence of wrongdoing.
Even though the feds were notified about several of hijacker Mohammed Atta's financial transactions before Sept. 11, no action was taken.
But in the logic of the public sector, that failure means the government was hobbled by insufficient money and insufficient power. Thus, the Treasury Department is now engaging in more surveillance.
Attorney General John Ashcroft says that all of the "safeguards of our Constitution" have been honored. But the Constitution's most vital safeguard is the principle of the separation of powers, and it has been undermined repeatedly.
One of the most odious provisions of the Patriot Act is known as Section 215.
That provision empowers FBI agents to demand things from people in terrorism-related investigations.
Ashcroft and conservative analysts claim that the Patriot Act operates in a similar fashion to ordinary search warrants so there is nothing to worry about. Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute, for example, says, "The FBI can do nothing under Section 215 without the approval of a federal court."
In truth, the act creates a façade of judicial review. Here is the pertinent language: "Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter" the order.
(More at www.cato.org)
peptoabysmal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2002
- Messages
- 3,466
I'd really like to know if Gore objects more to the content of the act or that it has the name "Patriot" in it.
I tried to read the act. Legal jibberish to me. I only speak computer-ese.
I can only trust that they don't repeal the second amendment, so I can start shootin' if things get real bad.
I tried to read the act. Legal jibberish to me. I only speak computer-ese.
I can only trust that they don't repeal the second amendment, so I can start shootin' if things get real bad.
Chaos
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2003
- Messages
- 10,611
Mmmh...just occured to me...
I´ve heard repeatedly that "the Patriot Act does not allow anything that is not yet allowed anyway".
Strange, if you think about it: if this Act gives law enforcement no additional powers, as its apologists claim - why did they pass it?
I simply don´t buy this "the Patriot Act des not allow anything that is not yet allowed anyway".
I´ve heard repeatedly that "the Patriot Act does not allow anything that is not yet allowed anyway".
Strange, if you think about it: if this Act gives law enforcement no additional powers, as its apologists claim - why did they pass it?
I simply don´t buy this "the Patriot Act des not allow anything that is not yet allowed anyway".
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Messages
- 11,286
Chaos said:
From whom?
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Messages
- 11,286
subgenius said:
Not really. Having the federal government tack on provisions having nothing to do with the original act in question is not exactly new. I would wager that it has been done on every, or virtually every, piece of legislation in the past 50 years.
Criticism of the name being taken to make it hard to vote for is valid, yet also, hardly new: "No Child Left Behind Act" "Security for Senior Americans Act" "Child Nutrition Act." Again, a huge number of laws passed in the last 50 years have taken names in order to make the law sound positive -- and to make it hard to vote against it: "You are against nutrition for our children?! You Bastard!"
I would be concerned if the portion of the law cited violated the Constitution or represented a material expansion of federal power. At the moment, I don't see the provision that you referenced as meeting that criteria -- though I am open to hearing more, as the press article supplies very little in the way of specifics. I cannot determine how much judicial oversight is given with regard to this procedure, which appears to be yet another way of obtaining records in a criminal investigation involving federal crimes - racketeering.
Now RICO, THERE is a statute that is extremely broad and over-reaching. I am far more concerned about federal law enforcement abuses under that act than the Patriot Act.
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 5,009
subgenius said:
Yeah, but the same people who voted this thing in are now suddenly against it?? I don't buy it. It seems clear to me that they either believed in the legislation, or they did not. Senators and congressmen are not normally stupid people.
If they did not believe in it, then why did they vote for it?
1. They are politicians, and as such cynically voted for it because they could tell which way the political winds were blowing. (dishonesty)
2. They were afraid of being tarred with the anti-patriotism/pro-terrorist label. (cowardice)
3. They didn't realize how awful the legislation really was, and how it could be abused. (stupidity)
4. They wanted to appease their constituents, even though they knew that their constituents were being emotional instead of rational. (pandering)
So, without wishing to create false dichotomies, I would solicit other ideas from the rest of you guys why you think the Dems failed to come out of the closet and vote against the USAPA.
Why? Because it seems to me that the USAPA was either voted for because it was believed in (Repubs),....or it was voted for because cynical, pandering, dishonest, stupid and cowardly senators and congressmen would not do their jobs and come out against it. (Dems) With the exception of the Honorable Mr. Feingold, that is.
-z
Chaos
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2003
- Messages
- 10,611
NoZed Avenger said:
Here on the board, among others. Okay, I admit it was not worded just like I said it.
But several of the defenders of the Patriot Act said about certain acts of law enforcement "they could have done the same legally without the patriot act".
You said, for example:
From the commentary Roadtoad quotes:
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Messages
- 11,286
Chaos said:
Yep. I was saying precisely what the referenced newspaper article said about that specific provision of the Act.
That is why I asked the question. I have not made an assertion that "the Act" made no changes in law enforcement power. I simply repeated that the article referenced by Sub stated that the provision used to retreive records in this case duplicated other statutes that also could have been used to obtain the records.
There is a large difference between that and the assertion that "the Patriot Act does not allow anything that is not yet allowed anyway".
I wanted to be sure that you did not misunderstand what I stated, which has nothing to do with the Act as a whole.
I cannot speak for Roadtoad, but it appears that his post dealt only with one particular section of the Act, as well.
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
Well, in the name of honesty, I have to admit that most of what I've done in the past few months regarding the Patriot Act has been more skimming that reading. I could go into what's behind that, but an excuse is worse than a lie, as far as I am concerned. So, I won't insult you with one.
I ought to have been doing more reading, which is something required by the scope of this law. At first, my thought was that yes, we needed tough legislation to deal with a very serious threat. After all, I thought at the time, it really doesn't affect me, does it? It goes after terrorists.
Until you start reading about how John Poindexter wants to know what's in your computer, but he doesn't want you knowing that he wants to know. Figure that one out.
And while you're at it, tell me why, after reading the legalese of this law, (which you need a copy of the U.S. Code to understand, because much of it is predicated on what's already been passed), so much of this was necessary? Bush was right about one thing: if I see a tank truck driven by one guy, then driven off by another, I'm going to ask questions, and maybe even make a phone call if it's warranted.
But much of what's being called for in this law it seems could have been done before 9/11, by any and all. I'm unnerved by the reality that I can't really get my mitts around this law, having read and re-read the text of it, and realized that if only current laws had been enforced in the first place, we might have been shipping 19 people out of this country before they ever boarded those planes. Or, for that matter, perhaps we could have kept them out in the first place.
Again, I don't know. I'm still trying to learn. I'll tell you that as much as the law itself is scary, what's scarier still is who's enforcing it.
I ought to have been doing more reading, which is something required by the scope of this law. At first, my thought was that yes, we needed tough legislation to deal with a very serious threat. After all, I thought at the time, it really doesn't affect me, does it? It goes after terrorists.
Until you start reading about how John Poindexter wants to know what's in your computer, but he doesn't want you knowing that he wants to know. Figure that one out.
And while you're at it, tell me why, after reading the legalese of this law, (which you need a copy of the U.S. Code to understand, because much of it is predicated on what's already been passed), so much of this was necessary? Bush was right about one thing: if I see a tank truck driven by one guy, then driven off by another, I'm going to ask questions, and maybe even make a phone call if it's warranted.
But much of what's being called for in this law it seems could have been done before 9/11, by any and all. I'm unnerved by the reality that I can't really get my mitts around this law, having read and re-read the text of it, and realized that if only current laws had been enforced in the first place, we might have been shipping 19 people out of this country before they ever boarded those planes. Or, for that matter, perhaps we could have kept them out in the first place.
Again, I don't know. I'm still trying to learn. I'll tell you that as much as the law itself is scary, what's scarier still is who's enforcing it.
TillEulenspiegel
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 30, 2003
- Messages
- 2,302
HAHHA I find it more then amusing when I read the responses of people. If politics make strange bedfellows the this is one is where there is an ungodly coupling of conservitives and liberals.
The funny part is that both sectors of political thought ( represented by many worthy spokesmen ) agree that this is an abuse of power. I find it supremely helarious that the self styled conservitives on the forum argue with the " liberal" view , while the intrusion of the government into private life was, is and remains a foundational ideal of freedom that discribes the conservitives worldview. I don't know but it seems like the ducklings are awaiting the next cause/issue by the momma Bush...err momma duck. Read, define your stance if you cannot object to the PA and it's more dangerous younger sibling you are NOT a conservitive............. You are a parrot.
Fer chrissakes look beyond your elbow.
The funny part is that both sectors of political thought ( represented by many worthy spokesmen ) agree that this is an abuse of power. I find it supremely helarious that the self styled conservitives on the forum argue with the " liberal" view , while the intrusion of the government into private life was, is and remains a foundational ideal of freedom that discribes the conservitives worldview. I don't know but it seems like the ducklings are awaiting the next cause/issue by the momma Bush...err momma duck. Read, define your stance if you cannot object to the PA and it's more dangerous younger sibling you are NOT a conservitive............. You are a parrot.
Fer chrissakes look beyond your elbow.
Matabiri
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2003
- Messages
- 1,732
From the UK
Similar things have occured in the UK, with anti-terrorism laws used to break up demonstrations:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3158958.stm
Yes, other laws could have been used to prevent them, but it was considerably easier for the police to invoke the no-paperwork-needed legislation instead. And when something is easier to do, it'll happen more often. My concern is that these laws make it too easy for the police/FBI/whoever to prevent behaviour they dislike, without having to actually justify why that behaviour should be prevented.
Rich
Similar things have occured in the UK, with anti-terrorism laws used to break up demonstrations:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3158958.stm
Yes, other laws could have been used to prevent them, but it was considerably easier for the police to invoke the no-paperwork-needed legislation instead. And when something is easier to do, it'll happen more often. My concern is that these laws make it too easy for the police/FBI/whoever to prevent behaviour they dislike, without having to actually justify why that behaviour should be prevented.
Rich