patriot act, not just for terrorists anymore

[lostone1413]

Long read about the Patroit Act but good reading. http://www.gunowners.org/fs0307.htm

 

[why_me]

.

.

 

[Ryan in the House]

Thanks for that page, that's a pretty thorough analysis of the Patriot Act.

Sounds like most of the stuff is speculation on what "could" happen (in context, the word "may" shows up far more than "will" )- it looks very much like a scare tactic to me. I'll look at the page more when I get the time.

 

[Ryan in the House]

Actually the patriot act does say it is intended for use against terrorists very clearly.The preamble of the Patriot act states the purpose of the act is:

"To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes".

This is a direct quote from the Patriot Act which clearly states its intent is to stop and punish terrorism.

Since the purpose of the Patriot Act is to stop terrorism, using it against someon who is not a terrorist makes no sense. It was already illegal under federal law to tamper with or interfere with a commercial aircraft, and this man should have been charged, but since he is not a terrorist, just and idiot, he should not be charged under patriot.

What does not matter to me is that they used a law that was created to deter terrorist activities to take down someone who was endangering lives all the same. What does matter is whether or not they're going to prosecute him as a terrorist; if he doesn't have ties, then it would be unreasonable for them to try him as one. How he was initially caught does not matter. How he is punished does.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

So if they charge him under the Patriot Act as a terrorist, and then if he is released later because a jury determines he is not a terrorist, you would consider that a proper outcome?

If they have charged him with being a terrorist, I think they will try him for that.

 

[CannibalCrowley]

Yeah, we've lost three people from my family in the last month, and it's not long before they come for the rest of us. We're all screwed! The sky is falling!

They're only making us wear stars, it's not like they'll actually treat us any different.

So you believe that a citizen's rights are forfeit if he's merely suspected of being a terrorist? I must have missed the part of the Constitution where it said "except for terrorists or those suspected as such".

The short answer to that is YES. I firmly believe that anyone who is evil enough to perpetrate mass murder forfeits his rights. Such a person should be, at best, locked up until the end of time. The firing squad is probably more just, but we live in times where that wouldn't be appropriate.

So if your neighbor has a beef with you one day and reports to the feds that you own a number of guns and have spoken out against the government before and you might be a terrorist. So you'd be fine if they locked you up for life or executed you?

What does not matter to me is that they used a law that was created to deter terrorist activities to take down someone who was endangering lives all the same

So you'd be fine with the unPATRIOTic act being used to investigate anyone who might be endangering someone's life?

How he was initially caught does not matter. How he is punished does.

First off, did you read the article? Secondly, why the difference? Either the PA was intended to help fight terrorism or it was intended as a way to simply give the govermnet even more power. You can't pick and choose it's an either or situation.

 

[RealGun]

Kind of reminds me of bogus readings of interstate commerce jurisdiction being used for gun control.

 

[45 Carry]

How long were they blinded by this laser? A nanosecond, a millisecond, 5 seconds? It would be hard to get the pilot and co-pilot in the eyes at the same time and keep the beam in their eyes, tracking the plane as it flew. I guess it could be serious but it sounds, to me, like the typical over reaction to a non problem. Rubber Bands are now banned in schools because they could be used as a weapon. This is nuts.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Headless Thompson Gunner
The short answer to that is YES. I firmly believe that anyone who is evil enough to perpetrate mass murder forfeits his rights. Such a person should be, at best, locked up until the end of time. The firing squad is probably more just, but we live in times where that wouldn't be appropriate.

Quote:
So if your neighbor has a beef with you one day and reports to the feds that you own a number of guns and have spoken out against the government before and you might be a terrorist. So you'd be fine if they locked you up for life or executed you?

I see little profit in continuing this discussion if you can't see a difference between perpetrating mass murder and owning a few guns.

I'll say it one last time: I have no problem with real terrorists being denied a few rights. I value the lives of my family, friends, and fellow Americans more than I value the rights of a few evil, fanatical, murderous thugs. If this makes me a bad person in your mind, then so be it.

Lemme get one other thing straight: I don't support the Patriot Act. It has some serious flaws that need to be addressed. Primary among those flaws is a lack of any way to ensure that non-terrorists are properly distinguished from real terrorists. But those flaws can be corrected, and all of our rights properly safeguarded. Our great Republic is NOT going to fall simply because of this law.

Why does everyone insist that the end of the world is near?

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Gunner, I agree the Republic won't fall because of the Patriot Act, but do you think the Patriot Act might be a stepping stone to other, more draconian regulation of our rights by the government?

In no aspect of our lives are we less regulated by the government than we were a generation ago. Federal law and centralization of power has increased steadily. To think that the Patriot Act is as far as the government is willing to go to "protect us" is naive.

I personally am not willing to deny the rights of even real terrorists if they are US citizens. Remember, it is the government that decides if you are a terrorist, and they don't decide it in a court of law. All they have to do is say you are a terrorist, and then can use the Patriot Act as they see fit.

I don't think the Patriot Act has made us any safer. I don't think it has prevented any terrorist acts. I am not even sure any real terrorists have been prosecuted under it.

 

[Croyance]

Although the Bush Administration assured Senators, Congressmen, and the public that the powers granted by the Patriot Act would be used only to fight terrorism, the Justice Department issued internal memos almost immediately on how they could use the Patriot Act on other crimes. Within six months of passage, the Justice Department supposedly had in house seminars on the same subject. In other words, there wasn't any intent on limiting the use of the Patriot Act.

 

[xinul22]

"... Banach, 38, of Parsippany admitted to federal agents that he pointed the light beam at a jet and a helicopter over his home near Teterboro Airport last week, authorities said. Initially, he claimed his daughter aimed the device at the helicopter, they said..."

Gee, what kind of person would try to pin it on his daughter?!?!

If there is a law making being a sleaze a crime, he should get the death penalty!

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Gunner, I agree the Republic won't fall because of the Patriot Act, but do you think the Patriot Act might be a stepping stone to other, more draconian regulation of our rights by the government?

I dunno. Mebbe it is such a stepping stone, or mebbe it isn't. In all honesty, I don't think it matters. Our government will continue it's slow slide towards more draconian laws no matter what, Patriot Act or no Patriot Act.

Nor do the presence or absence of laws make any difference when it comes to how oppressive or tyrannical our government is. Good, honest men in office will not abuse the people regardless of what kind of power the law gives them. Corrupt and evil men in office will always abuse their authority, no matter what the law says.

Bill Clinton, for instance, used the FBI to spy on and intimidate thousands of citizens without the Patriot Act. He also had quite a few people murdered (Waco, Vince Foster...) despite strong laws against murder.

It's their character that matters, not the law, and we as voters control the character of our leaders.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I agree with your sentiments Gunner. Evil men will always do evil things. But do you want to give them extra weapons to do their work? Thats the danger of the patriot act. An corrupt politician armed with the Patriot Act is more dangerous than a corrupt politician without it.