ACLU files lawsuit against Patriot Act

[CMichael]

* Violates the First Amendment freedom of speech guarantee, the provision allowing the right to peaceably assemble, and the provision allowing the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Markos and how exactly does it violate that? In fact it says specifically that the government can not seize anything that is allowed by the First Amendment?

* Violates the Fourth Amendment guarantee of probable cause in astonishingly major and repeated ways. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons of things to be seized." The Patriot Act, now passed and the law of the land, has revoked the necessity for probable cause, and now allows the police, at any time and for any reason, to enter and search your house. Under the act they are not required to even tell you why.

That is incorrect. The PA says that the Feds must show that what is needed is necessary for an ongoing investigation. That IS probably cause.

Also, the warrant must be very specific. I quoted the passages.

* Violates the Fifth Amendment by allowing for indefinite incarceration without trial for those deemed by the Attorney General to be threats to national security. The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, and the Patriot Act does away with due process. It even allows people to be kept in prison for life without even a trial.

That isn't in the PA. If you tihnk it is I would love to see the passages please.

* Violates the Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment).

This should be interesting. Where exactly does the PA allow for cruel and unusual punishment.

* Violates the 13th Amendment (punishment without conviction).

Same question. Markos could we get back to our home planet please. Do you have anything whatsoever to back up your assertions? Once again, I posted the link to the PA.

 

[rock jock]

Here we go again, waving the scary terrorist boogeyman.

Hmmm, that's funny. Some would say that waving the proverbial boogeyman threat around is exactly what you are doing.

I would ask though, since you did not respond to my earlier post, what would you do to prevent terrorist attacks on U.S. soil?

 

[TheOtherOne]

Pulled from: http://cgi.citizen-times.com/cgi-bin/story/38478

:banghead:

No! No! No! That can't be. It must be a misprinted story. Terrorist laws are for terrorists -- the government said so.

 

[CMichael]

This is why I posted the link to the actual PA so that you don't have to rely on the disinformation from skewed articles that just make stuff up.

 

[MicroBalrog]

I wonder if they would feel the same way if a bomb exploded in their local mall killing 500 people.

I live in Israel. Need I remind you how often do bombs blow up here?

But this is how I feel.

My freedom is more important than your good idea.

 

[Glock Glockler]

Rock Jock,

You're asking the wrong question, why does it matter if it comes at the expense of the BoR? Should we deep six the 2nd Amendment if some anti admits "yes, it does trash the BoR, but so what, how do we save the children and prevent gun violence"? I could walk into my living room right now and put a few rounds into my roommate's head (he'd taking a nap), do you think that there's anything you can do to stop me?

I was doing some creative thinking and found probably 1/2 dozen ways I could really cause some domestic havoc and I doubt there's anything the govt could do to prevent me. Even the Nazis, with one of the most comprehensive police states in history, has plenty of domestic terrorism. Do you want to give the govt as absolute power as the Nazis had?

 

[dustind]

CMichael, could you tell me what is allowed by the first amendment? How have the feds interpreted that?

Also what about being able to talk about your house being raided, I can not believe people stand for that. It also prevents redress of greviences.

 

[rock jock]

You're asking the wrong question.......I could walk into my living room right now and put a few rounds into my roommate's head (he'd taking a nap), do you think that there's anything you can do to stop me?

Nice try, but I don't know you. And your roommate's death, while certainly tragic, would not affect me in any way. OTOH, 9/11 affected the whole country. A WMD event would do the same, with much more dire circumstances. I would also point out that while I could not stop you from killing your roommate, he certainly could, especially if he were paying enough attention to recognize signs of sociopathic behavior on your part. However, he could also choose to stick his head in the sand and pretend that everything's allright, that your abnormal behavior does not warrant further investigation. He could rationlize this by telling himself that it's no business of his how insane you're acting, that he would be violating your rights by questioning you, by watching you. But, in your hypothetical, he would still end up dead.

Choosing to ignore a threat does not make it go away, it simply makes you unprepared and irresponsible. I for one am not willing to sit back and watch complacently as we get hammered again. You offer no alternative ot the PA; no one here does. Therefore I don't see where you have much cause to complain.

 

[Marko Kloos]

You offer no alternative ot the PA; no one here does. Therefore I don't see where you have much cause to complain.

I believe I have already stated that we wouldn't need to be protected from terrorists if the government didn't bind the hands of its honest citizens by forbidding them from protecting themselves. A half dozen permit holders on each of the 9/11 flights would have solved the problem before it resulted in the deaths of 3,000 citizens. Let's recap that: the WTC was destroyed, and 3,000 people were killed on 9/11, because an overbearing busybody government has forcibly disarmed its citizenry anywhere a weapon may actually do good.

Now we get the Patriot Act foisted upon us by that same government, and you honestly think that the brazen infringement on civil liberties is the only way we can be kept safe from terrorists? Well, if giving up some of our rights makes us a little safer, wouldn't giving up all of our rights make us a lot safer?

Like I've said before: the only reason we need to be protected is because the government has stripped us of our own ability to protect ourselves. They have broken our legs, handed us crutches, and said, "See? Without us, you wouldn't be able to walk!"

The alternative to the Patriot Act is for the government to leave us the hell alone, stop infringing on our rights, and let us protect our own interests. Who is more qualified and more motivated to defend my family: myself, or some federal bureaucrat?

 

[Moparmike]

Rock, I dont offer anything in response to the PA because I dont have a response to it. While I agree that we need to stop sitting on our hands and act, as of this moment there arent alot of places to direct that action. I dont advocate for a "wait and see" policy, but directing it at our own populus and violating our rights and civil liberties isnt the action to take.

The things in the PA are scary indeed, and while they do point a direction that is potentially prosperous for the nation, it also points directly at a fork where on one side is an 8-lane highway to oppression and a complete lack of liberties, and the other is a grown-over donkey trail to prosperity that can be completely overlooked if we dont have a rationally-thinking group of law-enforcers and leaders at the helm.

Like I said, you have a point that we have offered nothing to replace the PA and have done nothing but complain that the PA will come back to bite us in the @$$, but most of us look at what one of the Founding Fathers said: "Those that would now give up liberties for a little temporary security, deserve niether" (not an exact quote, got to find the exact one) and think that there has to be a different way.

I dont think that spying on my next door neighbor is a good idea (unless I have a reason, like funky smells or 3-eyed fish in his fish bowl, etc). I dont like the government spying on me. I dont like the idea that I cant perform my BOR-guaranteed rights without someone yelling "treason" or "sedition" or something. That is what the PA seems to allow. If so, it is completely unconstitutional. Just because we decide that "there are BG's out to get us" doesnt mean that the BOR and Constitution suddenly becomes toilet paper, which is exactly what the PA has done.

How can we protect ourselves without turning the CONUS and BOR into TP? Lots less bad PR of guns, and more people carrying them. One guy with a .45 on each plane could have put those planes safely on the ground. More people being less afraid to be good samaritans and stop crime and terrorism thru more grass-roots efforts.

I am loosing my train of thought, more later.

Edited to add: Marko posted right before me. He said some things better than I could have.

 

[Tamara]

Same question. Markos could we get back to our home planet please. Do you have anything whatsoever to back up your assertions? Once again, I posted the link to the PA.

And actual, you know, law enforcement officers have chimed in to tell you what they think about it.

Apparently, though, you're more up on what it takes to get a warrant than cops are.

The PA says that the Feds must show that what is needed is necessary for an ongoing investigation.

No, the act just says they needs to tell the judge that it's necessary.

Also, they don't even need to tell you that they served the warrant. Someone could be rummaging through your underwear drawer with a blank warrant right now (they'll fill in the "persons or things to be seized" part if they find anything, a legacy of the WoD with fun new implications under the WoT. And vice versa) while you're out at McDougal's grabbing a burger. If they don't find anything, they'll put everything back and not tell you (as it would jeopardize their "ongoing investigation") and come back later when the monitoring software they've put on your hard drive spots a juicy bit of your typing.

Maybe you're so anxious over this "terrorist" thing that you find such Stalinist tactics appealing. Could you sit down and explain things like secret warrants and folks being held without trial to Jefferson and Paine? Do you think they'd cry, or challenge you to a duel?

 

[rock jock]

I believe I have already stated that we wouldn't need to be protected from terrorists if the government didn't bind the hands of its honest citizens by forbidding them from protecting themselves. A half dozen permit holders on each of the 9/11 flights would have solved the problem before it resulted in the deaths of 3,000 citizens.

Marko, that is simply not realistic. It is never going to happen. You need to base your solutions on reality and that is not one of them.

For some reason, you seem to think that the solution to every problem is giving someone a gun. RKBA has its limitations in protecting individuals and societies. For example, you state:

Who is more qualified and more motivated to defend my family: myself, or some federal bureaucrat?

Are you kidding me? How do you plan to protect your family from WMD? Is your concealed handgun going to magically shield you from anthrax? From ricin? From a nuclear blast? From the destruction of a dam? A bridge? A skyscraper? Are you going to investigate suspicious persons on your own? Are you going to track the bank accts of suspected terrorists? Are you going to singlehandedly conduct the level of investigation and electronic survelliance that professionals (i.e., the evil feds) take years to learn? When do you plan to do this - between posting on THR and trips to the range? No, you're going to sit at home with your guns and pretend that there are no bad guys out there trying to obliterate the U.S. and that if there were, you would take them out with two to the COM before they could turn unleash their hell on us. My goodness, with that kind of invulnerability you could have mopped up Iraq with a Makarov in a matter of days. Unbelievable.

I've got news for you. The level of denial you are exhibiting is what got us into this mess in the first place. People not willing to face reality, living in their own little fantasy worlds, pretending that we could never be touched here, in our own land.

 

[LawDog]

Not the most subtle ad hominem attack I've ever seen.

Lights out.

LawDog