# Patriot Act and Civil Rights



## OULobo (Oct 23, 2003)

I'm probably standing in a powder keg with this subject, but I think it is time to light the match, especially considering this has been brought up in other threads, it's time to give this subject it's own thread. 

First off, opinions on the Patriot Act and how it has been used of late. 

I personally am against it. I have noticed that the federal government has been using it to arrest people for crimes that it was not intended for them to use against. They have used it to by pass the personal rights of many citizens of this nation. It was passed during a time of emotional unrest when many people didn't fully understand it and was passed so quickly that most people didn't (and still don't) know that it was even to be voted on by congress until it was already passed. Most disturbing of all, it is the possible key to the door of a police state. The Patriot Act is currently being used to override established civil rights like unjust imprisonment, right to a speedy trial, unrightful search and seizier(sp), right to a lawyer and lawyer-client/doctor-patient privilage. This is giving carte blanche to the federal government to harass and accost us. 

Second topic of debate is one that first alerted me to the propensity of our current government to frequently overstep its authority and recieve no consequence for it. 

Summary:
Ashraf Al-Jailani, a Yemen-born arab U.S. CITIZEN, by marriage to an Ohio born woman, has been held in prison since Oct. 23, 2002 without ever being charged, given the benefit of a lawyer until months after his arrest, been allowed to see his wife and children or been given the opportunity in court to explain his situation and be released. 

The FBI believes Mr. Al-Jailani to have ties to terrorist organizations. Earlier in the year Ashraf was able to get word, under the noses of the FBI, to his family about where he was being kept and his situation in general. The family was able to secure a lawyer and alert the press and a judge about the improper imprisonment. The consequent trial was attended by Ashcroft's second in command, the assistant attorney general of the US. 

During the trial the AAG stated that Ashraf had possible terroist ties and was therefore a flight risk and hazard to the general public, but the information that labled him so was classified, effectivly saying the judge should trust the federal government that this man was a threat (this trial ignored the issues of consequences of improper imprisonment and other possible civil rights violations and focused on trying to determine if Ashraf could be legally held). The judge stated that he was a federal judge and was privy to said information, but the AAG refused to allow the information to the judge. Without any other choice of action the judge then said that there was no apparent or presented risk of danger or flight and found to release Ashraf. At this the AAG told the judge he didn't recognize his authority in this matter and left without ordering the release of Ashraf. 

Today, a year for the time he was first imprisoned, the situation was again brought to court. This time it was immegration court for a bond hearing and could possibly lead to deportation and revoking of Ashraf's citizenship. The judge is Honorable Walt Durling. This time Ashcroft specifically declassified the informations that casts a shadow on Ashraf so that it may be used in the proceedings. Ashraf was never allowed to speak during the proceedings, despite twice requesting, and this protion of the trial "ran out of time" before Ashraf's lawyer could cross-examine the only witness brought to the stand, an investigating FBI officer, Roger Charnesky. The AG's office alleges that Ashraf was planning to attack a chemical plant that he worked at and the office brought information that included; links to a Saudi-born Chicago man (Mr. Khaleel) who bought computers and satillite technology for al-Qaida; an address on an ID card of Ashref's that is shared by a terrorist suspect (Suspect B); four telephone calls made by Ashref that lead to a convicted Yemeni money launderer in New York. The AG's office also brought to the court Ashraf's history of abuse towards his wife and his FBI profile, which closely fits that of a "sleeper-cell" terrorist. 

End summary. 

This summary is from articles that have appeared in the Cleveland Plain Dealer (local major paper), including one that appeared today. 

My take on this is that he may be guilty and he may be a bad person, but either way that doesn't make it okay to set up a past presidence to allow every citizen's rights to be trampled, because of suspicion. How arrogant is it to just deny the authority of a federal judge. In my opinion it reflects on the questionable ethics of the AG's office. 

Well, there it is. LET THE GAMES BEGIN!


----------



## Karazenpo (Oct 23, 2003)

Okay, I have my mouth piece in and the gloves on, let's do it! , lol.

Hey, we're not in the perfect world, might some things in this act seem or be unfair, maybe, but again, nothing works perfectly in an unperfect world made up of less than perfect human beings. As they say, there are casualties of war, unfortunate, regretable but that's the way it is because what some people don't get is-WE ARE AT WAR! How many of us are concerned that we personally are going to be a target of the 'Patriot Act', I'm not worried, my friends and family aren't, never heard it mentioned from my co-workers or at my two schools. Where there's smoke, there's fire! Your right he may be a bad person, etc,. etc.. A lot of people try to beat taxes, right, good people, maybe yourself to some degree and many on this board running schools, right? but I never heard anyone complain that Al Capone got railroaded when the feds put him away for income tax evasion. Sometimes, desperate times require desperate measures, not that I am saying this act is neccessarily an act of desperation but let us never forget we did lose over 3000 of our brothers and sisters on 9/11!  The problem with a certain portion of today's society is that no one seems to care or they just forget about the rights of the innocent, the victim, and they are all caught up in the criminals rights. Unfortunately, until it hits home some do not know how devastating and helpless one can feel as a victim of a serious crime or perhaps the victim is a family member or loved one! I respect your opinion and I'm glad you posted this topic. I feel it is very worthy of discussion and hopefully others will respond! Your round!!!!!!!!  LOL.    Respectfully submitted.

PS: To be fair I want to state, yes, I am a police officer and does that prejudice me? Maybe, but not in the way some may acuse me of, it's not prejudiced for power, more authority, ego, whatever, BUT I may have seen a lot more in my nearly three decades in law enforcement to sway me over to the neccessity of this Act.


----------



## OULobo (Oct 23, 2003)

Thanks for a well thought out and reasonable answer. Its good to hear from people who can have a debate and discussion without getting hostile or overly sarcastic. Too often emotion and political adjenda get the best of some subjects. 

Round Two (rebuttle) *DING DING*

While I agree this isn't a perfect world and that there are casualties in war, I can't say I call our current position war. The people I know who have been in real wars would slap me if I tried to claim that we are at war now (most of our beloved vets of WWII, Korea, ect. have the right to slap me anytime in my book. j/k). Without getting too far off track, I don't agree with our President's actions in Iraq, not because I am antiwar, but because I don't think action was needed or justified. There are quite a few people I know who are afraid of the effects of the Patriot Act, who are not criminals. The idea that an agent can come into my house without my knowledge because I knew a terrorist suspect in college or because I went to a peace rally is disturbing to say the least. What if I thought he was an intruder and shot him because I saw his gun? The problem is that already the federal agencies are using the Pat. Act to attack crimes in drugs, prostitution and other areas it wasn't meant for. What is to stop them there? Why not apply the Pat. Act to prying into everybody's life completly? If no one is doing anything wrong, then there is nothing to fear, except abuse of power, blackmail, big brother for real and another J. Edgar Hoover. I know that is a little over the top, but it illustrates how far they conceivably can go. I never thought I would hear of a member of the federal government tell a federal judge that he doesn't have authority. What happened to checks and balances? What keeps Ashcroft in check? Finally, as to the innocent victims of this "war", they are your casualties too and just as those casualties were unacceptable so are the casualties of our civil rights unacceptable. 

*DING DING*

Next round.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 23, 2003)

I am going to state my opinion w/o bringing any facts to the table right now. 

The patriot act, in a nutshell, is unconstitutional. When I have some time, I'll gather together some supporting evidence that you guys can see for yourself and I'll post.

That's all for now!


----------



## Karazenpo (Oct 23, 2003)

Ding, ding, next round....................Yes, but it "IS" a war. It's just a different kind of war. It's a war for the 21st century. These religious fanatics have, without a doubt, declared war on the west using religion as an excuse along with other lame reasons just because they are threatened by democracy, our freedom and essentially, our way of life. Do you honestly feel that if they had the capacity back on 9/11 to drop a couple of nuclear bombs on us they wouldn't? They just used the planes because that was the deadliest method they could come up with with their limited budget and technology. If they used nuclear devices there would be no debate that it was 'war'.  Pearl Harbor wasn't nuclear but that began the a world war and that was a naval base. 9/11 were people going to work, etc. doing their everyday things that we all do, not having a hint what was to be. War is war, it may be fought differently, with different strategies but its still war. These people aren't capable of fighting as history has dictated in the past but they are doing what they are 'good' and 'dangerous' at and they've claimed a lot of innocent lives so far. Imagine if they get some 'nukes' in the future if they go unchecked! Then, everyone will be saying, if there's anyone around that is, that we should have done this or done that. Also I have heard that example of shooting a federal agent because they came into your house one night while you were sleeping and thought they were a burglar. I first heard that on Fox News and  from what I recall it was started by a far left wing liberal group that was opposed to anything the Bush administration does. I could be wrong but I think they're dramatizing things a bit to make their case. Wow, this is a great debate. Back to my corner! lol.   Thanks!


----------



## OULobo (Oct 23, 2003)

*Ding Ding*

Granted the definition of war is hard to pen. It has many meanings and interpretations, but I have a hard time believing that we are at war when there isn't much of a real foe. Sure, terrorism and al-Qaida are real and can do damage, but saying that this is a war is like saying that "the war on drugs" is a war. It seems more of a soundbyte than a statement. Even if you consider this a war, there are certain freedoms and liberties that have never before been violated without recource since this country's birth, despite the many (real, lol) wars that we have fought. Overcoming an enemy should never be done at all costs. Everyone knows the famous quote by Thomas Jefferson about sacrificing liberties for safety and I believe that it and the document that those men wrote still stands today as the highest form of gauranteed freedom. The idea that a bill that was passed in a shady way at a time when vigilance for personal freedom was clouded by hysteria and emotion, and was later expanded to include applications it was never intended for, shows this bill as something that is against the very fabric of the document this country's liberties were founded on.  Already it is seen that the people in congress who voted for this bill are changing their minds. My two best friends had never even heard of the Pat. Act until I asked them if they knew what it could do to them, their loved ones and their lives. My friends are smart enough not to take my word for it, but a month later they both told me that, after polling friends and doing their own research, they had written our congressman in protest. This bill was passed behind the backs of the people and now is being used to prosecute them. Even the name of the bill was designed to take advantage of the strong nationalistic mood that swept the county after 9/11 to get it passed quickly and without exploration of the possible effects.

Side-note: I didn't realize the idea of the agent getting shot tresspassing was ever used before and if I had known it was I would not have invoked it, as I dislike using scenarios used by an extremist political group on either side of the spectrum. Thanks for the good fight, umm, I mean debate, lol.


----------



## Karazenpo (Oct 24, 2003)

Ding! ding!, lol.

Okay, but in this war we can put a face on the enemy in Usama Bin Laden. He has been responsible for an organized effort for several decades whose main purpose is in the murdering of innocent men, women & children, many of which have been Americans. This is a Middle Eastern revolutionary terrorist group, didn't we once have the 'Revolutionary War' against Great Britain for our independance, that was called a 'war', wasn't it?  Now, I wouldn't rush to compare it to the drug war. Here's my reason: Objectives. The objective of the drug lords is simple-money and in the process a by-product of that is people die. In the case of Al Queda, its objective is the murdering of all who don't share their beliefs and politics-big difference. The drug lords could be defeated simply by legalizing drugs (not that I am suggesting that, just citing an example), just like prohibition.
  Several weeks ago on Fox News they had someone (can't remember who) that was in support of the Patriot Act and he cited the many solid arrests of terrorists and the spoiling of several plots since the passing of this act. It was extremely impresive by any standards. I wish I took note of how many but I didn't,  it was an impressive number though.  Remember, we're not in a perfect world and in an imperfect world we will have imperfect policies. There are problems and flaws in our legal system, sometimes innocent people have been incacerated or executed and it's ashame but we don't throw the system out and why?, because it's the best system we have right now! Let's weigh up the line: The end justifies the means but don't take my perspective of that the wrong way! It shouldn't mean that the government walks all over our liberties and turns this into a police state. What I mean is there will be some problems with this system, again, it is not flawless but let's take into account how many lives it has saved. To steal a line from Mr. Spock of Star Trek, lol : "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". 
  The Constitution: Imho, way too much interpretation, it reminds me of the Holy Bible! The founding fathers had specific objectives in mind when they penned it, now, centuries later, everyone is reading into it and using their interpretation against  government policies. As we say in Kenpo, things evolve! James Mitose wrote a book in 1947: What is Self Defense-? Kenpo Ju Jitsu- now the techniques in it were vintage jujitsu/karate of that era but have since been modified or evolved to fit today's times and needs. The trouble with the Constitution it has never been revised and some things are written as they were intended to be interpreted in 18th century not in the 21st. I think some draw the wrong conclusions, you would have to live in or study that time in history to really understand their true perspectives. In Massachusetts we still have on the books that co-habitation by unmarried couples is a crime-imagine if we start enforcing that one! lol.
  Last but not least, hey, and I'd be willing to re-evaluate my position with some concrete evidence to the contrary but as of yet it may be the only thing we have right now! This reminds me of the sex offender registry in Massachusetts. There was a big move on calling it unconstitutional because the offenders were being punished twice. These are convicted sex offenders including many pedophiles, and to be perfectly honest with you I could care less about their constitutional rights when it comes to the security of our women and children! That's my spin on it, lol. You're round!!!   Always a pleasure, "Joe"


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 24, 2003)

The patriot act is unconstitutional, as I said before. I am not against 'fighting terrorism,' or tightening up regulation to prevent money laundering and other problems. I am against a blatent violation of or Civil Liberties and 4th amendment rights. With the patriot act, there is no "checks and balance" system, a system which we rely on to maintain our "freedom" here in America. There is no justification for this act, and it needs to be thrown out of our system. Here are the problems it creates, the facts behind it, and sources to support it. I would say 'ding-ding' but there is no need; I think with the facts I am going to present, I will have officially K.O.'ed the supporters of the act.

Patriot Act:

Problem #1: The law is not clear to our Citizens. Most laws read clear enough where we can understand exactly what is being said, although we do have a Judicial system for interpretation. In order to read the patriot act, youll need several days and a team of attorneys. We USED to know, as citizens, what our rights were. If we werent sure, we could easily find out. With the way this is written, we no longer know what rights we do or do not have.

Here is a sample:

SEC. 220. Nationwide service of search warrants and electronic evidence.

(a)	IN GENERAL  Chapter 121 of title 18, United States Code is amended 
(1)	in section 2703, by striking under the federal rules of Criminal Procedure every place it appears and  inserting using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by the court with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation; and
(2)	in section 2711  
(A)	in paragraph (1), by striking and;
(B)	in paragraph (2) by striking the period and inserting the ; and; and
(C)	by insterting at the end the following:
(3)	the term court of competent jurisdiction has the meaning assigned by section 3127, and included any Federal court within that definition, without geographic limitation.
(b)	Conforming Amendment Section 2703(d) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking described in section 3127(2)(A).

Did you get all that? 

Problem #2: Whenever challenged, the Justice Department urges the publice to read the actual language of the act for clarification. There is no way for the public to do this, given problem #1.

Problem #3: The Bill originally was more tolerable to human rights when the House of Rep. voted on it, but October 11, a month after 9-11, the Senate passed the much less-tolerable version that we have today, without really knowing what they were passing. Why and how you ask? The Bush administration didnt like the protections contained in the original house bill. So John Ashcroft and the speaker of the house worked the night before the vote to strip it of all the civil liberties the house voted for, resubmitting it at 3:45 A.M. before the vote. When they voted, they passed it based off the language that they read from the night before, not the new version. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, few were able to read the final version of the act before passing it. So, the act was passed irresponsibly, to be polite.

Problem #4: The SNEAK AND PEEK provisions. Your privacy has just been completely stripped by big brother by this act. Our Government may now trap and trace any and all of your records. This includes your private e-mails, bank records, school records, library book records, medical records, you name it. They are also able to come into your home, car, or anything private and search it, WITHOUT EVER HAVING TO TELL YOU THEY WERE THERE. This sounds like a bad conspiracy theory movie, but its all true unfortunately. We are stripped by our right to individual privacy by this act.

Problem #5: This is unconstitutional, as I said before, because it completely violates our 4th amendment rights. We have our 4th amendment rights for a reason, as well as a due process like search warrents. These protect our civil liberties. Thomas Jefferson, as well as many of our founding fathers, have stated repeatedly that once you allow rulers to violate your space and snoop into your life, the notion of living in a free society is out the window.

Problem #6 There is no need to show probable cause in a public court. Agents can go to FISA, which is basically a secret court with secret judges to obtain secret search warrants to violate our rights. But under this act, with an emergency warrant, agents dont even have to do that. Newspapers reported that 170 of these emergancy were issued in 2002 compared to 47  FISA warrants over the last 20 years. It would have been nice if any of these 170 searched were terrorists. None of them were.

Problem #7 The Gag Order. Once your rights are violated, investigators have a Gag order. What.we didnt just finish going through all your personal belongings, conviscating whatever we want.honest. They literally are not permitted to speak of going through your stuff, or taking your stuff. They are told to pretend like it never happened, and you are helpless against it.

Problem #8 Under the new act secret detentions are allowed. 5000 men, mostly students, have been detained and interviewed under the act for short periods, with no verifiable reason other then the fact that they are of middle eastern decent. Another 1,200 were detained and held indefinitely and secretly 11% were held for over 6 months, and 50% held more then 3 months. The majority of these 1200 were based off of minor immigration violations which would have not been warranted even a deporting prior to the act.

Problem #9 With Problem #8, since there is no due process, there is no stipulation on how to treat people imprisoned by the act. In a critical report by the Justice Departments inspector General, he reports a pattern of physical and verbal abuse and unduely harsh detention policies, such as, 23 hour per day lockdown, 24 hour cell lighting, communications blackout, excessive handcuffing, leg irons, and heavy chains. The report also describes the FBI making little attempt to distinguish those with terrorist possible ties, and the vast majority who did not.

Problem #10 With Problem #9, the communication blackout prevented detainees from contacting spouses, family, etc., many of these who were U.S. Citizens. As far as the familys new, they just disappeared. Also, many who were deported were not allowed to contact families before they had to leave.

Problem #11 This act doesnt require any verifiable proof for the Patriot Act to exercise its authority. You dont have to be a suspected terrorist, or a suspected threat to have your privacy violated. So, who is to stop regular, card carrying Americans from being searched and seized? Today it was used mostly on Arabic people, but whos to stop it from being used on Jewish people, people of African or Spanish decent, liberals, democrats, or simply ANYONE who disagrees with the powers that be. Nothing will stop it at this point. Who could stop the administration from doing research on every democratic and independent canidate out there, plastering private information about them everywhere come election time? Every overdue library book, or beer they drank incollege could be used for a negative campaign. And, who will stop it. Who could stop it if they decide to come to you for voicing your opinion wrongly someday? Under the act, they have the authority to do as they wish.

Problem #12 The act, as restricting as it is, fails to deter or prevent terrorism. Terrorist dont leave the paper trail that this act is designed to search and sieze. They pay cash and lay low. We use credit cars, a bank, we get a paycheck, we use the internet, etc. Terrorists dont. So who is REALLY being watched here?

*Sources  * 

For the text on the act itself: www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot

For Russ Fiengolds entire statement regarding his opposition to the Bill: www.russfiengold.org

For more on the White House changing and pushing the act through congress: After: Rebuilding and defending America in the September 12 Era by Steven Brill

For spccifics on on the Bill: Senate Judiciary Hearing of Oct. 9, 2002, How the anti-terrorism bill puts financial privacy at risk ACLU, Oct. 23, 2001. There are a ton of News sources for this issue in New York Times and Washington Post as well.

For the Justice departments report on detainees, check www.findlaw.com US Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General: Report to Congress on Implentation os Section 1001 of the USA Patriot Act.

I know I have read countless article about the abuses under the act in New York Times, USA Today, Washington Post, and a variety of other news sources. If you search through some of these, I am sure youll find some info.

I have been following this for sometime, but Dude, wheres my country? by Micheal Moore is fairly recent (last month or so?) and seems to have a comprehensive, easy to read summary of the dangers of this act in Chapter 4, with sources and articles sited in the back of the book.


----------



## Karazenpo (Oct 24, 2003)

Paul, I have to go over it again but for know let me comment on this section:

Problem #4: The SNEAK AND PEEK provisions. Your privacy has just been completely stripped by big brother by this act. Our Government may now trap and trace any and all of your records. This includes your private e-mails, bank records, school records, library book records, medical records, you name it. They are also able to come into your home, car, or anything private and search it, WITHOUT EVER HAVING TO TELL YOU THEY WERE THERE. This sounds like a bad conspiracy theory movie, but its all true unfortunately. We are stripped by our right to individual privacy by this act.

If this is true and they can do this just for the hell of it then I can see the problem here and would obviously agree it needs some revisions but not to throw the whole thing out and have nothing. As far as detaining people just because they are of Middle Eastern decent I'd have to look further into that but I will say this and some may get on my case for it but here goes:

   "All Muslims are not terrorists BUT all terrorists are Muslims" 

  *Some may take offense to that but tell me its not fact! I wish I could take credit for this statement but I stole it from Jay Sevren of 96.9 Talk Radio-"Extreme Games'. I also agree with you the language should be simple enough for the average American to assimilate. How about all the actual verfiable bad guys and plots it has uncovered since its inception-that is fact, isn't it?   "Joe"


----------



## Karazenpo (Oct 24, 2003)

Paul, I forgot this point but if you want to talk unconstitutional and lives being destroyed I'll give you an example. How about the probable cause needed for a woman to get a restraining order against a man? Do you know what it is? The woman's word. So now we know women don't lie, right? No offense intended to women and as a police officer since 1977 there are those that legitimately and honesty take out restraining orders against abusive males but do you know how many do so to get back at their husbands or boyfriends because they either came home after drinking with the boys, got caught with another woman or they themselves got caught and they try to use it as leverage against the guy. I have caught women several times in the past and they have come clean that it was a revenge thing! Now that's a problem that has been going on for several years now, especially since the O.J. case and a lot of hard working innocent guys have gotten railroaded. Police officers can lose their jobs over these allegations. In any other scenerio we could never just arrest and charge on someone's word. This may be a topic for another post but my point is why isn't anyone doing anything to recind this type of legislation, is it politically correct politics or what? It's definitely ruining lives. How many innocents have been burned by the Patriot Act as of yet?   "Joe"


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 24, 2003)

> If this is true and they can do this just for the hell of it then I can see the problem here and would obviously agree it needs some revisions but not to throw the whole thing out and have nothing.



I think it needs to be thrown out and rewritten, just because of how uneeccisarily extensive it is. What we needed tighter regulation on more then anything else was due dilligence on bank records to prevent money laundering. Terrorists like to transfer funds from bank to bank to hide the source of the funds, and thats how the 9-11 terrorists were able to finance their terror campaign and lifestyle before the attacks while remianing unnoticed. Now banks are required to have more of a due dilligence in regards to discovering the source of funds. The source can't just be "my other bank" anymore, you are required to report how that $$ was made as well, which is good, in my opinion.

The rest, however, is not needed. If someone is a suspected terrorist, investigators should have to go through the public courts to provide evidence of this accusation to obtain a warrent to search, seize property, or detain. As big of a pain in the @$$ this might be for law enforcement to have to go through, it is nessicary if we expect to live in a free society. 



> All Muslims are not terrorists BUT all terrorists are Muslims"



This is blatently not true. Timothy Mcveigh, the Uni bomber, the D.D. snipers, abortion clinic bombers, and countless others have killed for some sort of "cause." None of them were muslim, all of them were terrorists. There have been more people killed by terrorists in this country who did not have a fundamentalist muslim agenda then by terrorists who have. That blanket statement is simply not true.

Now, if we are talking about Al Queda, we could say that all Al Queda members are muslim. However, a very large population of them aren't Middle Eastern. I believe Indonesia currently runs the largest Al Queda network since Afganistan has been disessembled. There are other networks in Eastern Europe, Africa, and other areas of Southeast asia as well. Many cannot be profiled by using the Middle Eastern Profile, because many of them aren't even Middle eastern.

Regardless of that, MOST Muslims are not Al Queda, therefore 'Muslims' shouldn't be penelized for their chosen religion, or have their rights violated any more then Christians should because of a David Kereesh character.


----------



## OULobo (Oct 24, 2003)

Whoa! That was a bit of a unfounded statment. What about Tim McVey? What about abortion clinic terrorists? What about animal rights/eco terrorists? What about the IRA? What about Red Cell? These are organizations that have nothing to do with islamic fundamentalism or middle easterners. 

As for the idea of not throwing out the bill because of a couple of problems, I again have to disagree. The bill should be thrown out and separate bills each with one of the above issues should be raised in a timely manner and in understandable vernacular. This way there is no possibility of throwing in extra unintended powers into the bill during the debate on whether to pass it. 

Comments on earlier post: 
Legalizing alcohol didn't solve the problem of the mafia, which is still very active and was only forced to find more avenues of revenue to support their crime syndicate. Legalizing drugs will have the same effect on the drug cartels, but an even more intense effect here on the homefront. 

I can't say that I agree with imperfect laws and the idea of "wieghing up the line". If a law is seen as flawed, especially when as flawed as this one one is, then we should change it, not sacrifice the rights we have fought to protect for so long. Imperfect policies just mean that we should always be striving to improve them, not accept them as sacrificial lambs to the gods of safety.

It is impossible to know how many lives this law has saved. The government has been known to only give the info that makes it look best. This would be a prime opportunity. Even if they told us the sucesses, they may not tell you how many innocents rights were violated to achieve it, how many dead ends there are incomparison to how many successes, or realistically how much danger there was in each case. 

The Constitution of the United States is a plainly written document that was penned by an educated and esteemed group of men that had enough foresight to understand that these rights are to be guarded till now and decades from now and that those rights' validity and neccessity extend far beyond now. most of the constitutional law practiced today deals with the limitations and alterations that have been put in place over time, not the original rights afforded to us in the document. I disagree that the ideas originally penned need to be placed in context to the 18th century as I feel that the drafters saw these as rights that should be enforced regardless of time and distance (as intended by the term "inalienable"). Everything is subject to interpretation no matter what it is and so I think that reason and logic must be applied to make an interpretation valid. In this case I feel that it is both reasonable and logical to think that the forefathers prepared the document with foresight in the intent that certain rights never be altered or changed. 

Finally, on the subject of pediphiles and registry, I do think that thier rights should be protected. This is because they are indeed rights as citizens and unless these men are stripped of their citizenship they deserve the same rights as all other citizens. This is in the spirit of fairness and equality. A man is only as respectable as his word. Now we are telling people, criminals or not, one thing and then going back and changing the deal. This is dishonorable. As I believe that they have served their time and shouldn't be punished again. If you don't like them near you then include that in their punishment initially, make it part of the orginal deal, but don't punish them again after the fact. 


On Paul's post:
That was farging great man. Well written, well researched and with a fair bit of professionalism. Bravo.


----------



## OULobo (Oct 24, 2003)

Cross-posting with Paul. Sorry bout that.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 24, 2003)

> It's definitely ruining lives. How many innocents have been burned by the Patriot Act as of yet?



I agree that there are other laws on the books that may prevent one problem, but cause many others. Provisions need to be written for these to. However, to answer you question above, the answer is "Too Many!" Not only too many innocents have been burned to date, but too many for the future too. I can't predict the future, but the act gives our government far too much leways to infring on others rights, which can cause us major rights violation problems in the future if we don't repeal the law.

Both Conservatives and liberals alike speak of the injustice of Government intruding on our lives, yet more laws are passed each year allowing our government to do just that. The patriot act was a blatent crossing of the line in this regard, and I think that regardless of political party affiliation, we should all be offended, worried, and adement about getting an intrusive act like this one off the books.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 24, 2003)

> On Paul's post:
> That was farging great man. Well written, well researched and with a fair bit of professionalism. Bravo.



Thanks man!


----------



## Karazenpo (Oct 24, 2003)

Okay, you guys have made some good points but my statement on terrorists being Muslim from Jay Sevren is in regards to international terrorism as we see it today and definitely not domestic. I can't see how you can argue that this isn't a radical muslim group, no I didn't say the muslim religion in general and maybe I should have elaborated more but it is a 'radical muslim group' that we are at war with right now, not abortion clinic terroists, not Mc Viegh who was obviously stopped in his tracks being tried, convicted and sent to the hereafter but 'radical muslim terrorists', can't we all agree that is the problem at hand and that is the sole reason for the patriot Act-that is what we are discussing!

As far as pedophiles go and other sex offenders, rapists and the like here's my opinion and the opinion of my brother and sister officers in general-I will stand by the term-in general: People that really don't see and live with the evils of society day in and day out for a long period of time tend to be so concerned about these criminals' rights but we never hear of such a passionate concern for the rights of the victim unless of course these people are violated someday-then they have a different perspective. Your constitutional rights are a privilege that you can obviously lose-doesn't that happen when you go to prison and when you come out, sorry, you don't share all the rights that others do. You can't get a firearms I. D. card, you can't get a civil service job, become a police officer or fireman, you can't run for public office, you can't become a teacher, doctor, (probably a lawyer, though,lol, just kidd'n) etc, etc. certain other employers won't hire you either-what are you going to call it-discrimination?
There is a price to pay even after you serve your time and there should be.  Again, remember, we're talking about serious crimes here! 

As far as the end of prohibition not stopping the mafia, it wasn't supposed to but it hurt them, for it cost them millions of dollars in illegal revenue. It zapped them where it hurt and its common knowledge there are not as powerful as they once were. Whoever heard of an UnderBoss (Sammy 'The Bull' Gravano rat out The Big Boss (John Gotti). Things are a chang'n.


----------



## Karazenpo (Oct 24, 2003)

Your post read:


It is impossible to know how many lives this law has saved. The government has been known to only give the info that makes it look best. This would be a prime opportunity. Even if they told us the sucesses, they may not tell you how many innocents rights were violated to achieve it, how many dead ends there are incomparison to how many successes, or realistically how much danger there was in each case. 


  The government has been known to only give the info that makes it look best????????  How about the 'left wing liberal media', all the major netwoks including CNN with the exception of Fox News-"Fair & Balanced', the vast majority of nationwide newspapers. Now, gentlemen it is common knowledge that outside of talk radio favoring the right wing conservatives, all the above is a fact. Just listen to the radio, read the newspapers, watch the news channels. If you followed the war in Iraq and switched back and forth between CNN and FOX you'd think you were viewing two different wars! Lately, even some of the Iraqi citizens are coming forward and stating it's nothing like the media has generally been reporting. You say the government? That statement probably came from CNN,  ABC, L. A. Times, New York Times or Bill Clinton, lol.   Grreat discussion, bring it on!


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 24, 2003)

> can't see how you can argue that this isn't a radical muslim group, no I didn't say the muslim religion in general and maybe I should have elaborated more but it is a 'radical muslim group'



It is undenyable that radical Muslim Fundementalists were responsable for 9-11 terrorist attacks, and it is undenyable that Radical Fundamentalism is a problem worldwide. However, if we are discussing our National Security, Radical Muslims are no more of a problem today then they were back in 1980 when we put Saddam Hussien into Power ourselves, or During the Iraq/Iran war where we armed him weapons, including the Biological and Chemical agents we were after this past year.

We need to be aware, yes, but not just of Radical Muslims. There are plenty of threats to our country that lie outside of Muslim fundamentalism.

No one is arguing against the idea that Radical Muslims are a problem; we do argue against the idea that "muslims" in general are a problem.

Since the discussion is regarding the patriot act, however, not whether or not radical muslims are a problem. I still contend that the act does little to combat radical muslims, but does far too much to strip away our freedoms. 

Unfortunatily I am off to a meeting, but I'll post more in a few days regarding the media driven miss-notion that we are in some kind of unidentifyable and indefinate "war." We are not at war anymore then we were 5, 10, or 20 years ago. The fact is this idea of "an indefinate war" is the Bush administrations ultimate scare tactic to get us to give up our civil liberties, consume more, stop asking questions, and 'support our president' in 2004.

Heck, this administration would be lucky if we got thrown into another crisis before the election. Hmmmm.....maybe they'll call some of their friends to help them with this. I won't mention the names of these friends specifically, but they live in a country that rhymes with "Baudi Barabia."


----------



## Karazenpo (Oct 24, 2003)

You posted:


The Constitution of the United States is a plainly written document that was penned by an educated and esteemed group of men that had enough foresight to understand that these rights are to be guarded till now and decades from now and that those rights' validity and neccessity extend far beyond now. most of the constitutional law practiced today deals with the limitations and alterations that have been put in place over time, not the original rights afforded to us in the document. I disagree that the ideas originally penned need to be placed in context to the 18th century as I feel that the drafters saw these as rights that should be enforced regardless of time and distance (as intended by the term "inalienable"). Everything is subject to interpretation no matter what it is and so I think that reason and logic must be applied to make an interpretation valid. In this case I feel that it is both reasonable and logical to think that the forefathers prepared the document with foresight in the intent that certain rights never be altered or changed

   **Do you really think the founding fathers had the type of insight to ever dream of the international and domestic problems of the 21st century? They were highly educated, yes, absolutely-for that time period! It's not the same world now or country for that matter. You had also stated if laws are flawed, change them. Laws are sometimes a blending of generaliztions with some specifics. It is often said no two situations are alike, no two cases, no two people, etc. You will never get laws to perfectly fit every situation like a glove. No matter how much a law is revised, re-written thrown out and re-written again, it won't be good enough someday down the line for some lawyer defending his client and he will be making the same argument you are. Laws are like techniques which have an unending modification process to fit each individual who attempts to tailor it to their own physiques, strenghts and weaknesses. Don't misinterpret what I mean, yes, there are times we have to change, re-write, modify or simply throw out a law but we are limited because each law can not be custom tailored for every scenerio that could possibly happen or in other words you can't please everyone!


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 24, 2003)

Last one before I take off!

In regards to your quote from OUlobo:

Good points about the framers of the constitution, and yes, we do make our modifications to fit the times. I think that certain freedoms that we have, however, prevents us from becoming like many of the totalatarian regimes around the globe. To jeprodize some of our basic freedoms is unamerican in my opinion. I believe the Patriot act does just that.

It would be one thing to require better reporting and due diligence on bank transactions, for instance, to prevent money laundering; something our framers didn't have to worry about really. But this act, to me, clearly crosses the line, and opens up a window for our Government, one we are supposed to trust to protect us, to violate our civil liberties.


----------



## Karazenpo (Oct 24, 2003)

Paul, I just read your last post on the Bush Administration, it wasn't up there when I posted last.  It appears you are a democrat, I may be mistaken but it appears so. I was a democrat for years, supported Jack and Bobby Kennedy, cried like a baby when they were murdered. However, I see now they were conservative democrats. I supported Clinton during all his problems and had some good battles with Republicans over it. Now, I believe I'm wrong. I'll say I'm Independant but now when I look back at Clinton I think he should have been put in jail for some of the things he pulled off. Put it this way, if it were you or I we'd better be packing our tooth brushes!, lol. I do agree and realize there are other threats to our country (North Korea for example) and they should not be neglected either and I know about the history of Saddam and Bin Laden going back to 1980 but after 9/11 I firmly believe we have a job to do and failure to do so will present us as a weak people in their eyes and we'll strengthen their cause. They are like the bully in school who keeps knocking over your books, the day you stand up to him and knock him on his ***, he goes on to someone else. Great debate Paul, it's fun, we get a lot of things off our chests, exchange ideas, viewpoints and principles and nobody gets hurt-sounds like the perfect world!, lol. Take care, Joe


----------



## OULobo (Oct 24, 2003)

In response to idea of victims rights:
I whole heartedly agree with victims rights, and this is exactly what I am objecting to, but not only the treatment of the victims of terrorists, but the victims of the overzealous attempts of the government to stop terrorism. While I can't bring back the past victims, we can stop future victims of the blatant abuse of civil rights that the government is currently applying. Prevention is the key, not compensation.

I do believe that it is discrimination if an employer decides to deny employment of an ex-con because he is an ex-con. I think the criminals that have been rehabilitated should be given the chance to prove it in a job and that denying them that chance is criminal itself. That is without bringing up the instances where the crime plainly wasn't commited by the ex-con and the govern refused to recognize the fact. 

There were many turn coats in the history of the mafia including the times of the prohabition. The reason the mafia has lost some of its muscle is because it is having to deal with competition from other organized crime. It's not the only bully on the block anymore. 

The media coverage of the wars by CNN, ect. is hardly what I would call independant coverage. It might sound conspiracy theoryish, but my opinion is that the government is deciding what they show. Real independant coverage often, but not always, shows the governemnts actions in a neutral light. Regardless, in situations where only the government has the info, like in the case of the Patriot Act actions, are we really going to trust what the government says. I sure can't. If you want my trust, then open all the books to my eyes not just the ones that make them look good. 

Yes, I do believe that the fundamental basis of these questions was envisioned by the forefathers when they wrote the bulk of the Constitution. Obviously the may not have imagined the details, but they sure knew that sooner or later the government would try to get powers that extend beyond the control of the people, and that is exactly what they were trying to safeguard against. As for revision, yes, I agree that you can't please everyone and that you can't solve all the problems, but in this case (Pat. Act), as Paul said, there are just too many problems to not throw it out and re write it. Too use the technique analogy, no matter how many times you customize a technique to defend a punch in different situations its still never a good (reasonable or logical) idea to block a punch with your face. No matter how much you change the law to fit the situation there are still things that are fundamentally wrong.

Let's keep it rollin.


----------



## Karazenpo (Oct 24, 2003)

Hey OuLobo! Okay, I'm ready. Now, let's say you had a nice family owned business with your wife and kids working there (hypothetcially, of course), c'ome on now, if some ex-con that was convicted of violent/and/or sex offender crimes who paid his dues to society came in for a job and it was available and you could very well hire him, would you? I hate to presume anything but I really think not. Now, let's not be politically correct, but your answer from the heart. As a matter of fact how many reders of this post right now would not discriminate on this issue? It's easy to say we'd do this or that but just put yourself in that situation and see what you would really do, be honest. I think the vast majority of everyone would expect you to discriminate, lol. What's more important to you, the potentional lives and well being of you and your family or this guy's rights? See what i mean? 

Now, on this that you stated:


There were many turn coats in the history of the mafia including the times of the prohabition. The reason the mafia has lost some of its muscle is because it is having to deal with competition from other organized crime. It's not the only bully on the block anymore. 

  *You could be right but I kind of also lean towards the fact they don't have the 'cosa nostra' ethics and loyalty they had before, again, when I say ethics I mean that as more of 'an honor amongst thieves'.  I know they had their 'rats' then but I think they were more of the exception than the norm, now, most all seem to rat on each other when the pressure is put on. I don't see a Charles 'Luck" Luciano or a Meyer Lansky doing that. In retorspect, I don't think the repeal of the Volstad Act was a major blow by any means but it certainly didn't help. It just seems like there's no loyalty anymore, just look at the martial arts, sure there were always problems but nothing like today.

  I think CNN and others reports that way of their own volition. I really don't think they would be controlled by the government unless they wanted to be. It's funny, look how easy they were on the Clintons' (Democrats), imagine if that was Bushes' right now being acused of everything the Clintons' were including "WhiteWater'! Notice, the left wing can't get at FOX NEWS, so I really have to say it's their political bias with CNN and its cohorts.

Yes, I believe the founding fathers showed a lot of good insight but I still don't think they ever imagined or prepared for today's 
world problems. Just my thoughts! Okay, I'm more exhausted from this then a tough workout, I mean it, I'm burn't out so signing off for now!  Great debate! Talk to ya later.   "Joe"


----------



## OULobo (Oct 24, 2003)

Yeah, I hear ya. I gotta head home from work. To be continued. Mabey on Monday. See ya!


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 24, 2003)

> I'll say I'm Independant but now when I look back at Clinton I think he should have been put in jail for some of the things he pulled off. Put it this way, if it were you or I we'd better be packing our tooth brushes!



Agreed! LOL...No I am an independent as well. I do have severe problems with our administration right now, though, which I'll address later. Some of my comments are toung and cheek too, like 'Baudi Barabia'...:rofl: I am glad that we are able to have a good discussion, with noone getting too upset.

I'll post more later on!


----------



## OULobo (Nov 5, 2003)

An update in the immigration trial of Ashraf Al-Jailani.

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1067686212271740.xml


----------



## khadaji (Nov 5, 2003)

This was a great debate...   I would like to add in my own comment..

If they hate freedom, and thats why they are at war with us, then if we give up our freedom to fight the war, then victory is theirs.   All goals achieved.  Freedom crushed.


----------



## OULobo (Nov 6, 2003)

Another example of abuse of the law. Seems the government feels it can apply a law meant to be used against terrorists to polititians, strippers and club owners. 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Nov-04-Tue-2003/news/22512794.html


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by OULobo _
> *Another example of abuse of the law. Seems the government feels it can apply a law meant to be used against terrorists to polititians, strippers and club owners.
> 
> http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Nov-04-Tue-2003/news/22512794.html *



Exactly...unfortunatily this law doesn't even differentiate between potential terrorist threats and others. Investigators should have to go through due process like everyone else.


----------



## OULobo (Feb 23, 2004)

Just another update on the Conspiritor and Cheat. . .oops I mean Commander and Cheif's baby the Pat. Act and how the Supreme Court refuses to rule. Isn't the Judicial branch specifically supposed to decide these things? You know the whole checks and balances schpeel. 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040223/us_nm/court_security_secrecy_dc_2


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 23, 2004)

How easy the liberal media was on the CLINTONS? FOX News, last bastion of free speech?

Now that's comedy.

As for the Constitution, it may be instructive to check and see who exactly it is that keeps crying for new Constitutional Conventions or at least lots of whacko Amendments. 

Hint: it ain't "liberals," whatever that means.


----------



## OULobo (Jun 21, 2004)

US CIA contractor from Afghanistan to be prosecuted with Pat. Act. Now we are using an anti-terrorist law against the people stopping terrorism, or is a blurring of the line between terrorist and anti-terrorist. 

http://www.cleveland.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news/108764617832800.xml?nnusa


----------



## Nightingale (Jun 21, 2004)

I ran into my own patriot act issue on friday.

I discovered, when attempting to E-file my taxes, that the social security people had my birthday wrong.  They thought it was the 2nd, and its the 1st.  a simple typo from when the card was issued.

So, I go down to the SSA with the following:

my birth certificate (altered)
my passport
my drivers' license
my social security card
my LA Fire Department ID
even my freakin' library card.  

Every single little piece of info I can think of to verify my identity.

the lady at the counter says, that while she believes me, the "security measures we're required to implement by the patriot act" require that they get the ORIGINAL microfiche of my birth certificate from LA County to verify my date of birth.

The problem here is:  I was adopted.  Those records are sealed.  They'll probably have to get a freakin' court order to open them, which, in the case of ANY adoption information, is a royal PITA and usually denied.

So...  I'm grumbling about the mess, but figured it wouldn't be that big a deal, since, other than not being able to e-file my taxes, the issue hasn't caused me any trouble thus far.

HOWEVER... the lady then looks at my drivers' license and says "oh... we might have a problem here."

She tells me that now, the DMV is required to verify personal information with the SSA before issuing or renewing a drivers' license.  My license expires in December.  They're claiming it will take them at least six months or so to work through this mess to unravel the birth certificate issue, so, I will probably not be able to renew my drivers' license when it expires.  


So, basically:

Because of the patriot act and some moron's typo, come December, I won't be allowed to legally drive a car.

someone please tell me how this is protecting America?  

(and no cracks about my driving.  I have a perfect driving record from day 1, thanks much.)


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 21, 2004)

Come on, Nightengale...like you were actually USING those civil liberties anyways.  :wink1:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 21, 2004)

Nightingale said:
			
		

> I ran into my own patriot act issue on friday.
> 
> I discovered, when attempting to E-file my taxes, that the social security people had my birthday wrong.  They thought it was the 2nd, and its the 1st.  a simple typo from when the card was issued.
> 
> ...



Not the same, yet close. When I was 15, I received a letter form selective services stating that I had not registered on my 18th birthday. I went down to the post office and they took the sheet and said they woudl take care of it. Next year I received another letter, this time I insisted on seeing and talking to someone, as I was a junior in high school and looking at college, and this would mess up my chances at scholarships and also financial aid. I just went down and tried to sign up when I was seventeen, I gave up, and guess what they told me I was too young to sign up and register for selective services. Then I showed them the last two years of letters. I had lost the first one. When I turned 18, after I started college, it was all straightened out. I did not get financial aid possibilities for hte first two years of college because of this. It sucks.

Recently I was crossing the US Canada border. I had Paul J with me. The guy asked for my ID, I provided him with my passport. He was not happy wiht it being Blue and USA. I offered up my drivers license also. He then negligently said oh I need to see your ID too to Paul. Later while asking what we were doing in Canada and Buffalo where we came from, it came up we had friends through martial arts. The guys asks me if I ahve any weapons. I say no. Knowing I have training tools with me . Paul answers who I have knives and hatchets and blades and sticks, and ..., . The guys smiles a Paul and says ok, you can go.

Paul then realizes what he had said. His blonde hair and blue eyes was not a threat . Yet, this and more I get everythim I cross a border. I travel with more documentation then required, and Paul just smiles and says Yep I go t  weapons so what of it.

Civil liberties????? Hmmm What are those Paul?


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 21, 2004)

As a blonde hair blue eyed white male, I can tell you all about them!  :rofl: 

That was pretty funny. When we were on "code orange" they were searching everyones vehicles. They get to my martial arts bag, containing sticks, FMA swords, combat knives, hatchets, and so forth. Keep in mind, I had nothing to declare when asked. "what-r-these 4?" he asks. So I try to talk the lingo, "I teach combatives to Military, Leo, and Civilians." (not a total lie, as I had the opportunity to teach 2 army units, a handful of marine and airforce individuals, 3 cops, and mostly civilians.  :uhyeah: ). He looks at me and says, "That's cool. You can go."

 :rofl: 

I'm thinking that there is no WAY that Rich P. could get away with that!

Hey Rich...next time, I say you where a turban and sunglasses, and we'll see if my whiteness will protect us then!


----------



## Taimishu (Jun 21, 2004)

_I have read the posts with great interest and not being American cannot say it has any effect on me. Also I have only a limited knowledge of the American constitution and the various ammendments. The point of this is to say that I cannot really comment on the Patriot act or on its effects on people._
_The one thing I do know is that once the powers that be have thier foot on your neck they are not going to remove it easily. The Patriot Act places thier foot firmly on your necks and you have virtually no chance of getting it repealled now._
_Also watch out for more "stealth" legislation as governments know that that is the only way to get this kind of thing through the system._

_By the way isnt it nice to know that your (and our) leaders have your best interests at heart.   _

_David_


----------



## Nightingale (Jun 21, 2004)

if the court declares it unconstitutional (there have already been several suits filed regarding this), then the act is null.


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 21, 2004)

Nightingale said:
			
		

> if the court declares it unconstitutional (there have already been several suits filed regarding this), then the act is null.



...Praying and hoping for the grand resignation of about half of our current supreme court justices, starting with scalia. :idea:


----------



## OULobo (Jun 21, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> ...Praying and hoping for the grand resignation of about half of our current supreme court justices, starting with scalia. :idea:



. . . or a Pres. that will oppose it at evey turn, including controling his legal pit bulls like the AG.


----------



## Taimishu (Jun 22, 2004)

Nightingale said:
			
		

> if the court declares it unconstitutional (there have already been several suits filed regarding this), then the act is null.


And so the court says NO and the AG says tough I dont recognise your authority.
I rest my case

David


----------



## OULobo (Jun 22, 2004)

Taimishu said:
			
		

> And so the court says NO and the AG says tough I dont recognise your authority.
> I rest my case
> 
> David



That's what happened here on a state level. The supreme court made a ruling and the governor said "I don't recognise it". The problem with the governor or AG doing that is that the people can then break that law, and not be prosecuted in a court which doesn't recognise that law or the executive's branch to enforce that law. Example: If the courts say CCWs are legal and the execs don't recognise it, I can still and would still carry (but very carefully) because if they arrest me and I go to court, the judge will throw it out without a trial. 

If I am not mistaken, aren't the federal marshals an enforcement group under the judicial system. They would be the arm to enforce the judges' decision.


----------

