ACLU files lawsuit against Patriot Act

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm curious, for all of you railing against the PATRIOT act, how many have actually read it??? Don't believe the news media - the sky isn't going to fall. be careful of what you ask for, you just may get it. As one poster stated, the fact that the ACLU is against it is good evidence that it can't be bad for America.

Before you start "hamstringing" the government's ability to snag terrorists, go and actually read the text of the act. Then see how many imagined horrors actually exist.
 
JimP,

While I've not read the entire thing, 300+ pages of legalese nonsense is a bit much even for a masochist like me, I have read a decent amount of it and I see plenty of instances where the govt basically wants to steamroller over the 1st, 4th, and 6th amendments.

The idea that because the ACLU is against it it is therefore a good thing, is complete nonsense. Any law must be judged by it's own merits, not by who's for it and who's against it. If Satan held a press conference and declared that he was against gun control and thinks that all gun laws muct be immediately removed, would you be against it because it was Satan who was supporting it?

I'm not going to give up my freedom because the govt thinks it needs more power to do whatever. They can go pound sand for all I care, as they neither care about my well being nor can do anything to enhance it.
 
Last edited:
Those who fight the Second Amendment Wars on the side of constitutional principals pride themselves on having a good handle on the facts of gun control. So much so the anti-2's are reluctant to engage in a debate of the facts.

I'm not so sure those of oppose the Patriots Act on constututional grounds have the same high ground. As I've said before, I hear lots of noise but I just don't see the same level of documentation as I see in fighting the war. Does that mean I think the PA is fully constitutional and that we face no threats from an overreaching government? Not hardly. One is well-advised to always be suspicious anytime government seeks to protect us. That great defender of consitutional liberties, Orin Hatch, wanted to dispense with the sunset provision in the PA. That made me suspicious as to why he thought it was necessary to eliminate a review scheduled 4 years in the future. No, Orin. Leave it alone. . .

Having said that, I do know enough about the situation to know the previous administration put into effect policies designed to make it difficult for intelligence and LE to cooperate and share information. If there is any lesson to be learned from 911 it is both need to talk and work together. Something made difficult if not impossible because of Ms. Reno and her handler. To the extent PA eliminated those barriers, I applaud the effort.

My fear is we spend too much time chasing snipes that don't exist and thereby ignore true and dangerous threats.

I'm open to changing my mind but I do it when I see facts, not "well, everyone says. . . "
 
Haven't read it yet, BUT

QUOTE:
Justice Department officials say the section can be used only in a narrow set of circumstances, including to obtain foreign intelligence information about people who are neither American citizens nor lawful permanent residents, and to defend the United States against foreign spies or international terrorists

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you're NOT an AMERICAN citizen, or a LAWFUL RESIDENT, I have no problem whatsoever with this.

The ACLU can pick better battles than this.
 
The Electronic Frontier Foundation did a nice write up on it. Basically it shreds the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendment, feel free to read for yourself.

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.php

EDIT: or from www.cato.org

a brief
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-069es.html

patriot act search results at cato
http://search.cato.org/query.html?col=allcato&qc=allcato&pw=100%&rf=0&qt=patriot+act&x=7&y=14

From wired.com
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,57636,00.html
* Conduct domestic wiretapping without court order for 15 days following a congressional authorization of use of force or an attack on the United States.
* Secretly detain citizens.
* Deport any alien, including green-card holders, who are convicted of drug possession or an aggravated felony.
* Access a citizen's credit reports without a subpoena.
* Abolish federal court "consent decrees" that limit police surveillance of non-criminal organizations and public events.
* Criminalize the use of encryption software in the commission or planning of a felony.
* Apply strict gag rules to those subpoenaed by a grand jury.
* Collect DNA from suspected terrorists and indeed from any individual whose DNA might assist terror investigations.
* Extend authorization periods for secret wiretaps and Internet surveillance.
* Ease restrictions on the use of secret evidence.
 
You know, I'm reading this, and I'm thinking, you Americans are so lucky... at leas you don't have "Security Detainment".
Click to expand...

Sure we do. All it takes is for a member of the Executive branch to declare you an "enemy combatant". Bingo! No right to a lawyer, no trial by a jury of your peers, no limits on length of detainment without charges. Just ask Jose Padilla.
 
The American Criminal Liberties Union does only those things that further the destruction of this country. Those who mistake their efforts as a search for truth and justice are either ignorant of the A.C.L.U. (and its history), delusional, or otherwise impaired. Perhaps they would also care to salute the A.C.L.U.'s efforts to secure the right for predatory pedophiles to train one another in seduction and kidnapping techniques that have worked for successful predatory pedophiles in the past.

Me? I will continue to see the A.C.L.U., and its agents, for exactly what they are.
 
Ok, maybe I should say this again: If Satan declared himself to be against gun control, would you then support gun control because of Satan's position?

While I do think the ACLU has it's head up it's butt on many things, I agree with them on a handful of issues, this being one of them. If they really were intent on destroying the US as agents of the Soviets, they probably would do an occasional good thing to keep people off balance and off gaurd. Being completely evil 100% of the time would give you away. Actually, if I wanted to subvert the country I would do good things 99% of the time and commit that 1% of evil when people least expected it and where it would do the most harm. Even if they are the agents of darkness, at least give them a little credit and don't insult their intelligence by thinking them that stupid.

The sheepish non-thinking displayed here is reprehensible. Simply forming an opinion on a law, without reading the law, because of a group that you don't like that has a position on said law, is being intellectually lazy at the expense of your nation and freedom. Oh well, I guess it's easier than thinking and reading the law.

I'd like to see some here actually READ THE LAW, then think about it and if it coincides with your belief in freedom.
 
The sheepish non-thinking displayed here is reprehensible. Simply forming an opinion on a law, without reading the law, because of a group that you don't like that has a position on said law, is being intellectually lazy at the expense of your nation and freedom. Oh well, I guess it's easier than thinking and reading the law.
Click to expand...

That is the most sensible thing I have seen posted anywhere for some considerable number of days now.

No, your enemies enemy is not always your friend (think OBL or Saddam) However the ACLU are not Saddam or OBL, they are fighting for your constitutional rights on this issue. Whether they are right or wrong about whether the PA violates your constitutional rights on this one, if you disagree with the PA then it is ok to support the ACLU on this issue.

Pick your issues on the basis of the issue, not on the basis of the personalities or political machines attached to each one. To switch Glock's analogy around: if Satan became pro-guns over night would you become a Satanist?

The political thinking I read on this forum and on others can be so one-dimensional as to be infuriating.

The Demorats are evil, thus I must hate all demorats and all their ideas

or

GW Bush is a moron, thus all Republicans are morons


Think outside of your narrow definitions.
 
The political thinking I read on this forum and on others can be so one-dimensional as to be infuriating.

The Demorats are evil, thus I must hate all demorats and all their ideas

or

GW Bush is a moron, thus all Republicans are morons


Think outside of your narrow definitions.
Click to expand...

That's the sweetest thing I've read here in a long time.
 
If Satan declared himself to be against gun control, would you then support gun control because of Satan's position?
Click to expand...
No. Just as I wouldn't support the A.C.L.U. because (as in this instance) they happen to support a position that I happen to agree with.
To switch Glock's analogy around: if Satan became pro-guns over night would you become a Satanist?
Click to expand...
See above

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
My fear is we spend too much time chasing snipes that don't exist and thereby ignore true and dangerous threats.
Click to expand...
I too fear this, but I see the greatest potential threat coming from the inside not the out.
 
Jim excellent post.

What some biased organizations say about it doesn't mean it's bad legislatioin.

I read the relevant parts of the Patriot Act. I think it's a great law.

It's easy to be cynical when you aren't in charge of protecting the public from terrorism. It's a different story when you are on the front lines.

I agree with the Patriot Act.

And it does make a difference that the ACLU is against it. It shows what a great Act it really is.
 
CMichael,

If you really think that the govt is going to keep you safe from terrorism I've got some great beachfront property I'd love to sell you. Just one thing you want to keep in mind in your quest for security: the people who have the most security in the US are those that are in Maximum Security, prison that is.

Nazi Germany, which was argueabley the most efficient police state in history, could not eliminate terrorism not only in the conquered territories but even in the Fatherland as well. Sabatours and assassins regularly blew up buildings, killed various people, etc. Do you really expect any govt to protect you without first stripping you of all your freedom?

The Patriot act is unconstitutional. I don't care how effective it is.

Micro,

For a self-declared liberal Israeli, I kinda like you. :D
 
I’m not so sure those [who] oppose the Patriots Act on constututional grounds have the same high ground. As I’ve said before, I hear lots of noise but I just don’t see the same level of documentation.…
Click to expand...

Of course you don’t. Investigations initiated under the PATRIOT Act are secret.

~G. Fink
 
If you really think that the govt is going to keep you safe from terrorism I've got some great beachfront property I'd love to sell you. Just one thing you want to keep in mind in your quest for security: the people who have the most security in the US are those that are in Maximum Security, prison that is.
Click to expand...

I don't think anything is 100% effective. However, I think the government can do what is in it's power why maintaining essential liberties that we have in order to minimize the threat.

The way you deal with terrorism is by capturing and killing the terrorist. I don't think anyone here can do that better as an individual than the government.

How many planned attacks have already been thwarted? I would imagine we will never know.

However, that we haven't had another major attack since 9 11 shows how effective the US has been. I am sure Al Qaida is itching to execute another major attack within the US.
 
That's true Mirco.

I wish that those who disprove of the Patriot Act would quote directly from it and then state why they oppose the passage.

At least that why it's based on the facts and not the rhetoric.

And that does include the interpretation of some biased organization.
 
That's true Mirco.

I wish that those who disprove of the Patriot Act would quote directly from it and then state why they oppose the passage.

At least that why it's based on the facts and not the rhetoric.

And that does include the interpretation of some biased organization.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
ACLU v Patriot Act. Lawsuit filed.
Replies
23
Views
865
Art Eatman
A
A
  • Locked
from 22 August Reason Magazine, on-line edition
Replies
2
Views
266
alan
A
C
  • Locked
Libraries Rally Against USA Patriot Act
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
sanchezero
S
W
  • Locked
Sen. Sensenbrenner opposes expanded Patriots Act
Replies
3
Views
397
Geech
G
W
  • Locked
City Criminalizes Patriot Act
Replies
5
Views
544
Delmar
D
Back
Top