Old Line Republican says something in the works to trigger a police state

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Maybe, but he can't speak better than me. I'll even go as far as to say Dustin Hoffman as “Rain Man” can speak better than "W".

But W makes more sense than you.

Yea, Right.

[MDM4AU 336]

Bush recently signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which allows the president to arbitrarily declare citizens and non citizens “enemy combatants” and imprison them indefinitely without charge.

Where'd that little jewel come from BF? An op-ed by Mr. Paul in "Tin-Foil Hat Brigade Monthly?"

[channonc 466]

The Patriot Act alone can strip you of your rights as an American simply by labeling you as a terroritst. One word used with your name and you are no longer an American citizen protected by the same rights we all have been given by the blood of those who fought for our country in war after war.

I seriously doubt that your claims are true. Again, please back them up.

Raptor, read it for yourself...

USA Patriot Act

How about you be a bit more specific than " read it for yourself ". Citing a specific title and section would be most helpful.

Thanks.

I know, actually having to read what was passed into law is a big burden. You asked for a link, I gave one to you.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

I'd think that if the government was patrolling around in the middle of the night wantonly picking up citizens just for sh*ts and giggles, we'd hear more about it in the news.

If you liberals are so scared of your rights being violated by the Patriot Act, then do this simple thing that will pretty much guarantee Bush, Cheney, and Rove don't pull up into your driveway one night with beating sticks and burlap bags: DON'T TALK TO TERRORISTS ON THE TELEPHONE. That's all it takes.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Bush recently signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which allows the president to arbitrarily declare citizens and non citizens “enemy combatants” and imprison them indefinitely without charge.

Where'd that little jewel come from BF? An op-ed by Mr. Paul in "Tin-Foil Hat Brigade Monthly?"

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17190.htm

http://www.usmarshals.gov/falcon/index-falcon1.htm

http://www.usmarshals.gov/falcon2/index.html

http://www.usmarshals.gov/falcon3/index.html

[FootballFanatic 4]

I'd think that if the government was patrolling around in the middle of the night wantonly picking up citizens just for sh*ts and giggles, we'd hear more about it in the news.

If you liberals are so scared of your rights being violated by the Patriot Act, then do this simple thing that will pretty much guarantee Bush, Cheney, and Rove don't pull up into your driveway one night with beating sticks and burlap bags: DON'T TALK TO TERRORISTS ON THE TELEPHONE. That's all it takes.

Any time a government takes over control of its populace through a dictorship or opressive government the events leading up to said seizure are mild and small. Each step being a small errosion of rights and freedoms. Each liberty removed for the protection of the citizen. Soon the government is in full contol and the poor citizen finds the pot had been brought to a boil quite slowly. Now you have no rights or freedoms and its too loate to do anything about it. Our government is about liberty and freedom and we as Americans, liberal or conservative, should never allow the removal of our freedoms for even our own safety.

There is absolutely no reason ever in this world we should allow a governing body to strip us of our liberties for any reason.

If you look back at the creation of the constituion and the bill of rights the idea of protected liberties and the need to take up arms to protect the citizenry from tyrannical government has been present since day one. The ease with which single minded conservatives sacrafice their liberties is stupid. On top of this, they spend their time defending why they gave up the liberties bequeathed to them by millions of american lives in wars and revolutions in days before we existed.

There is no reason to giveup your civil liberties ever.

I am sure that in Russia and Germany many people were safe if they just didn't talk to radicals or terrorists. Just go along and get along. Thats not how this country is supposed to work.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

I'd think that if the government was patrolling around in the middle of the night wantonly picking up citizens just for sh*ts and giggles, we'd hear more about it in the news.

If you liberals are so scared of your rights being violated by the Patriot Act, then do this simple thing that will pretty much guarantee Bush, Cheney, and Rove don't pull up into your driveway one night with beating sticks and burlap bags: DON'T TALK TO TERRORISTS ON THE TELEPHONE. That's all it takes.

You mean they are still eavesdropping on phone conversations? Heck, for all we know you could be a terrorist.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

What civil liberty have you been robbed of? The liberty to talk to Pakistani's?

[AuburnChopper1 0]

What civil liberty have you been robbed of?

That's a great question I've asked several times in different circles. He'll never answer it, because I can assure you, that he hasn't and doesn't probably know anyone that has.

That's the first thing that the conspiracy theorists go to when they bring all this stuff up, but they can't site the first instance where it's actually happened to someone it hurt.

Being at war is not fun, and a little inconvenient, but if for a small groups inconvenience, that means that I don't have to worry about my local Publix or Winn-Dixie being blown up by the next extremist who thinks I'm an infidel, well, so be it.

[CCTAU 3,342]

What civil liberty have you been robbed of? The liberty to talk to Pakistani's?

The PA walks the line, but that is needed in this case. If our government did not have some authorizations, then the libs would be defending true terrorists at every corner saying that their rights are violated. Please quit defending the bad guys and help us create tools to catch them. The PA is one of those tools. This is not an act that will grow. Both sides of the isle know what is happening here and both sides fight it out . Certain parts of it have been revoked. That shows that it is a tool to be used sparingly. We found that with the illegal wire tap scenario that libs were willing to sell out the country just to keep the "terrorist's rights" in place. I'm sure that most Americans do not have an issue if the government wants to listen in on our call to Syria. Oh wait. Most Americans don't call Syria.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

You can't cite it because that's against the law too. It's against the law to talk about someone who has been taken away.

The act allows the executive branch of government rather than the judiciary to imprison people and to imprison people indefinitely without charge or trial. The act also makes it an offence to even talk about somebody being imprisoned. One of the more controversial aspects of the legislation is the requirement that a parent, if informed of their child's detention, may not inform any further person including the other parent. This clause applies also to detention of adults.

http://www.answers.com/topic/habeas-corpus

[Bottomfeeder 244]

What civil liberty have you been robbed of? The liberty to talk to Pakistani's?

Most Americans don't call Syria.

You are right, but I don't want them listening anyway. It's matter of personal privacy, PERIOD.

[SupperClub 0]

You can't cite it because that's against the law too. It's against the law to talk about someone who has been taken away.

The act allows the executive branch of government rather than the judiciary to imprison people and to imprison people indefinitely without charge or trial. The act also makes it an offence to even talk about somebody being imprisoned. One of the more controversial aspects of the legislation is the requirement that a parent, if informed of their child's detention, may not inform any further person including the other parent. This clause applies also to detention of adults.

http://www.answers.com/topic/habeas-corpus

Nice try, BF. The paragraph you quoted refers to Australia, not the United States. Click the link he provided, scroll down to the Wikipedia section, specifically Australia. What is quoted above is the 3rd paragraph. Care to throw any other bullsh*t at us?

[AFTiger 282]

What civil liberty have you been robbed of? The liberty to talk to Pakistani's?

Most Americans don't call Syria.

You are right, but I don't want them listening anyway. It's matter of personal privacy, PERIOD.

I wonder how BF reacted to the illegal eavesdropping on private converstions between John Boehner and Newt Gringrich by Democrat operatives and then illegaly released to the NY Times by a Democrat congressman?

I wonder how BF reacts to the obsession of sex by the Democrat party and its efforts to indoctronate innocent children with so called sex education progragram that promote homsexuality and promiscuity?

I wonder how BF reacted to the use of the IRS by the Clinton Whitehouse to intimidate and suppress conservative organizations?

I wonder how BF feels about the right of association and the long term historical attacks on that old freedom?

I know how BF reacted to the attack on the US by militant Islamisists; he blamed Bush and called it staged.

I know that BF once posted that he would no longer post his crap on this forum and restrict his presence to the football forum.

[AURaptor 1,126]

The Patriot Act alone can strip you of your rights as an American simply by labeling you as a terroritst. One word used with your name and you are no longer an American citizen protected by the same rights we all have been given by the blood of those who fought for our country in war after war.

I seriously doubt that your claims are true. Again, please back them up.

Raptor, read it for yourself...

USA Patriot Act

How about you be a bit more specific than " read it for yourself ". Citing a specific title and section would be most helpful.

Thanks.

I know, actually having to read what was passed into law is a big burden. You asked for a link, I gave one to you.

I didn't ask you for a 'link', I asked you for a specific support for your claim. Title and section, plase, or I'll know you're full of hot air and can't defend your charge. Merely stating that the P.A. strips us of our rights and freedoms and then posting a link to the entire P.A. does not count as 'proof'.

[channonc 466]

The Patriot Act alone can strip you of your rights as an American simply by labeling you as a terroritst. One word used with your name and you are no longer an American citizen protected by the same rights we all have been given by the blood of those who fought for our country in war after war.

I seriously doubt that your claims are true. Again, please back them up.

Raptor, read it for yourself...

USA Patriot Act

How about you be a bit more specific than " read it for yourself ". Citing a specific title and section would be most helpful.

Thanks.

I know, actually having to read what was passed into law is a big burden. You asked for a link, I gave one to you.

I didn't ask you for a 'link', I asked you for a specific support for your claim. Title and section, plase, or I'll know you're full of hot air and can't defend your charge. Merely stating that the P.A. strips us of our rights and freedoms and then posting a link to the entire P.A. does not count as 'proof'.

[MDM4AU 336]

You can't cite it because that's against the law too. It's against the law to talk about someone who has been taken away.

The act allows the executive branch of government rather than the judiciary to imprison people and to imprison people indefinitely without charge or trial. The act also makes it an offence to even talk about somebody being imprisoned. One of the more controversial aspects of the legislation is the requirement that a parent, if informed of their child's detention, may not inform any further person including the other parent. This clause applies also to detention of adults.

http://www.answers.com/topic/habeas-corpus

Nice try, BF. The paragraph you quoted refers to Australia, not the United States. Click the link he provided, scroll down to the Wikipedia section, specifically Australia. What is quoted above is the 3rd paragraph. Care to throw any other bullsh*t at us?

That's BF's MO. He posts something as fact, but it's actually totally false, out of context or an opinion of one of his fellow tin-foil hatters.

Bottomfeeder? That You?

[FootballFanatic 4]

You can always count on the ACLU to still have stuff like this.

http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/facts.html

Myth: “Underthe Patriot Act, I’m very confident in saying there have been no abuses found.” [1]

Reality: The Patriot Act has been abused. The ACLU detailed these abuses in a 10-page letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein, dated April 4, 2005.

Brandon Mayfield is a Portland, Oregon resident who is a convert to Islam and an attorney. Mayfield was wrongly accused by the government of involvement in the Madrid bombing as a result of evidence, including mistaken fingerprint identification, that fell apart after the FBI re-examined its case following its arrest and detention on Mayfield on a material witness warrant. Attorney General Gonzales acknowledged before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Section 218 of the Patriot Act was implicated in the secret search of Mayfield’s house. FBI admitted that it entered Mayfield’s house without a warrant based on criminal probable cause and copied four computer drives, digitally photographed sever documents, seized ten DNA samples and took approximately 335 digital photographs of Brandon Mayfield’s home.

Tariq Ramadan is regarded by many as Europe’s leading moderate Muslim intellectuals. Time Magazine named Ramadan among the Top 100 Innovators of the 21st Century. The government revoked Ramadan’s visa to teach at the University of Notre Dame under Section 411 of the Patriot Act, which permits the government to exclude non-citizens from the country if in the government’s view they have “used [their] position of prominence to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or to persuade others to support terrorist activity.” Consequently, an individual who discusses politics that a terrorist organization may adopt as its own viewpoints may be excluded from the United States, even if the individual does not support terrorist activity. As such, the government can essentially use this provision to deny admission to those whose political views it disfavors. There is no doubt that Ramadan uses his position of prominence to espouse his political beliefs. Notably, Ramadan, who denounces the use of violence in the name of Islam, had already been granted a visa after undergoing an extensive security clearance process and had previously been permitted to enter the country on numerous

A number of other examples are also listed in the ACLU’s letter. The Justice Department largely confirmed the substance of these examples in its response to the ACLU letter, dated April 26, 2005, while denying that the examples listed were “abuses.” The Office of Inspector General of the Department of Justice is actively investigating the Brandon Mayfield case.

The extent of Patriot Act abuse is still unknown because of excessive secrecy enshrouding its use. For example, both special document FBI document snoop orders, called “national security letters,” (expanded by section 505 of the Patriot Act) and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) document orders (expanded by section 215 of the Act), include permanent “gag” provisions. These automatic secrecy orders prohibit recipients from telling anyone they have received the order or letter to produce documents that include their customers’ private information. Return

Myth: The Patriot Act simply “updated the tools of law enforcement to match the technology used by the terrorists and criminals today.” [2]

Reality: The Patriot Act “updated” surveillance powers – but failed to “update” the checks and balances needed to ensure those surveillance powers include proper judicial oversight.

For example, a roving wiretap follows the target of the surveillance from telephone to telephone. Because there is a greater potential for abuse using roving wiretaps compared to traditional wiretaps, which apply to a single telephone, Congress insisted on important privacy safeguards when, prior to the Patriot Act, it first approved this “updated” surveillance power for criminal investigations.

Section 206 of the Patriot Act created roving wiretaps in Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) investigations. Section 206 erodes the basic constitutional rule of particularization by allow the government to obtain “roving wiretaps” without empowering the court to make sure that the government ascertain that the conversations being intercepted actually involve a target of the investigation. Section 206 also created “John Doe” roving wiretaps – wiretaps that need not specify a target or a device such as a telephone.

The failure to include an ascertainment requirement, and the failure to require naming either a target or a device, is what is controversial about section 206 of the Patriot Act. Congress “updated” the surveillance power, but didn’t update the safeguards.

Another example is the use of “pen registers” and “trap and trace” devices to track detailed information about Internet use. Telephone pen/trap orders, as they are known, permit the government to obtain a list of telephone numbers for incoming or outgoing calls with a court order not based on probable cause. However, Internet addressing information reveals much more detail, such as the specific web pages viewed or search terms entered into a search engine. When Congress expanded the government’s power to get pen/trap orders for Internet communications in the Patriot Act, however, these differences between telephone and Internet communications were ignored. Congress failed to specify rules to ensure that the privacy of ordinary Americans web surfing and e-mail habits were protected.

Again, Congress updated the surveillance powers, but not the safeguards. return

Myth: The Patriot Act is “mostly taking what we can do to track drug dealers and thugs and give those tools to people tracking spies and terrorists.” [3]

Reality: This statement is both inaccurate and misleading. Most of the Patriot Act is not all related to this concept. Before the Patriot Act, the government could use the same tools, such as wiretapping or using grand jury subpoenas, to investigate drug dealers and terrorists. The government simply had to be investigating a crime of terrorism. There are more than forty such crimes in the United States code, ranging from hijackings and bombings to providing material support for terrorism. 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5). All of the surveillance powers available to investigate drug dealers are also available to investigate any of these crimes.

Drug dealing and terrorism, therefore, can both be investigated with all of the powers the government has to investigate crimes. Every power the government has to “track drug dealers and thugs” can be used, on the identical basis, to track “spies and terrorists” on exactly the same basis – e.g., relevance to a grand jury investigation for subpoenas, probable cause for searches and wiretaps, etc. The government’s statement above makes an assumption that a criminal investigation is not a terrorist investigation. Such an assumption is not true because criminal investigations do include investigations of terrorists.

Unlike an ordinary drug investigation, however, international terrorism may also be investigated using foreign intelligence surveillance powers. Foreign intelligence investigations, however, are not limited to international terrorism. They may involve intelligence gathering for foreign policy or other purposes involving lawful activities. Expanding the government’s surveillance powers in foreign intelligence investigations allows the government to do much more than “track[] spies and terrorists” but also allows them to track many other people, including Americans and others not suspected of involvement in terrorism or crime at all. return

Myth: The codification of delayed notice warrants in the Patriot Act “brought national uniformity to a court-approved law enforcement tool that had been in existence for decades.” [4]

Reality: The Patriot Act’s “sneak and peek” provision is about lowering standards for sneak and peek warrants, not imposing uniformity. The two circuit courts that upheld the use of delayed notice warrants imposed a very similar rule, including a presumptive seven-day limit on delaying notice. Delayed notice search warrants, or “sneak-and-peak” warrants, allow investigators to enter an individual’s business or dwelling to obtain limited and specific information for an investigation and notifying the individual of the search at a later date. Section 213 of the Patriot Act overturns the seven-day rule and instead allows notice of search warrants to be delayed for an indefinite “reasonable time.” Section 213 authorizes a judge to delay notice upon a showing of reasonable cause instead of probable cause to believe that there will be an adverse result if notice is given to the target of the search warrant. return

Myth: The primary effect of the Patriot Act was to “bring down this ‘wall’ separating intelligence officers from law enforcement agents” in coordination and information sharing. [5]

Reality: Information sharing between criminal and intelligence investigations occurred before 9/11 and the Patriot Act. The primary effect of the Patriot Act was to remove necessary checks and balances in foreign intelligence investigations.

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, procedures only restricted information sharing between agents and criminal prosecutors, “not between two kinds of FBI agents, those working on intelligence matters and those working on criminal matters.” Moreover, agents could brief criminal prosecutors on the information obtained from investigations, but the prosecutors could not control the information itself. Also, information gleaned from FISA surveillance was repeatedly used in criminal cases because communication of that evidence from intelligence investigators to criminal investigators was permitted before the Patriot Act. [6]

The “wall” was more a product of bureaucratic misinformation than statutorily imposed impediments. Former Attorney General Reno issued formal procedures intended to manage only the information sharing between Justice Department prosecutors in intelligence investigations and the Federal Bureau of Investigations in criminal investigations to prevent appearances of impropriety in information sharing practices. The procedures, however, were immediately misunderstood and exaggerated. The FBI exaggerated this limitation to mean that it could not share any intelligence information with criminal investigators, even if the intelligence information was not obtained under the FISA procedures. The NSA also imposed informal caveats on NSA Bin-Laden-related reports that required approval before sharing the information with criminal prosecutors and investigators. Instead of following the procedures, agents kept information to themselves.

Because these problems resulted from a misunderstanding of the law, not the law itself, the Patriot Act is not the reason for improvements in information sharing. FISA information, properly obtained for foreign intelligence purposes, could always be shared with criminal investigators if relevant to crime. Rather, the Patriot Act is about making it easier to use FISA as an end-run around the Fourth Amendment. return

Myth: The Patriot Act’s “new powers have allowed authorities to charge more than 400 people in terrorism investigations since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and convict more than half.” [7]

Reality: The government often accuses critics of wrongly blaming the Patriot Act for terrorism-related abuses that are not related to the Patriot Act. Here, the government is attributing convictions it says are terrorism-related that have nothing to do with the Patriot Act, with no explanation as to how any of them were related, if at all, with the Patriot Act. return

The government’s numbers are also severely inflated. The “400 convictions” claim overstates actual number of convictions and omits a number of key facts related to these numbers. A list obtained by the Justice Department defines only 361 cases defined as terrorism investigations from September 11, 2001 to September 2004. [8] 31 of the entries on the list were blacked out. Only 39 of these individuals were convicted of crimes related to terrorism. The median sentence for these crimes was 11 months. This figure indicates that the crime that the government equated with terrorism was not serious. A study conducted by TRAC at Syracuse University notes that “despite the three-and-a-half-fold increase in terrorism convictions, the number who were sentenced to five years or more in prison has not grown at all from pre-9/11 levels.” [9] The convictions were more commonly for charges of passport violations, fraud, false statements, and conspiracy. [10] Moreover, the median prison time for a serious offense, such as providing material support to a terrorist organization was only 4 months. [11]

Myth: The Patriot Act does not contain a provision that allows the government to obtain library records, and “[t]he reading habits of ordinary Americans are of no interest to those investigating terrorists or spies.” [12]

Reality: Section215 of Patriot Act does cover library records. It authorizes the government to more easily obtain a court order requiring a person or business to turn over documents or things “sought for” an investigation to protect against international terrorism. Business records include library records. Both Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act records demands and national security letters (which cover more limited categories of records, including, according to the government, some types of library records relating to Internet access) can be used to obtain sensitive records relating to the exercise of First Amendment rights, including the reading habits of ordinary Americans. For example, a records demand could be used to obtain a list of the books or magazines someone purchases or borrows from the library. Moreover, the government can obtain medical records containing private patient information. The government can also obtain records and lists of individuals who belong to political organizations if it believes the organization espouses political rhetoric contrary to the government.

While both national security letters and section 215 records demands cannot be issued in an investigation of a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident if the investigation is based “solely” on First Amendment activities, this provides little protection. An investigation is rarely, if ever, based “solely” on any one factor; investigations based in large part, but not solely, on constitutionally protected speech or association are implicitly allowed. return

Myth: “[The] Patriot Act is chock-full of oversight in a lot of ways that regular criminal procedure is not: full of the involvement of federal judges…” [13]

Reality: The statute authorizing the use of “national security letters” as amended by the Patriot Act 505(a) contains no judicial oversight. The statute allows the government to compel the production of financial records, credit reports, and telephone, Internet, and other communications or transactional records. The letters can be issued simply on the FBI’s own assertion that they are needed for an investigation, and also contain an automatic and permanent nondisclosure requirement. In the most controversial portions of the Patriot Act that require judicial oversight, the judge wields a rubber-stamp. For example, Section 215 requires the FBI to apply to a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to obtain an order for the production of business records. The FBI must only specify that the records pertain to a foreign intelligence investigation, a vague and broad concept. The judge is required to issue the order after the FBI makes this specification, making the judicial review a mere formality than actual oversight. return

Myth: Critics believe that the Patriot Act authorized federal law enforcement power to arrest and indefinitely detain material witnesses.

Reality: Federal law enforcement is abusing the current material witness statute, which the Patriot Act did not amend, to improperly detain “material witnesses” and failing to provide these detainees their rights in accordance with criminal statutes. The material witness statute [14] was used prior to the Patriot Act and authorizes the federal government to arrest a witness if the government demonstrates in an affidavit to a federal district court that the witness has testimony that is material to a criminal proceeding and “it is shown that it may become impracticable to secure the presence of the person by subpoena.” [15] Congress enacted this material witness statute for use in limited circumstances. A court may authorize the arrest of a witness who will likely flee if subpoenaed or will otherwise avoid testifying in a criminal proceeding and if it accepts the affidavit demonstrating that the witness has “material” information to the criminal proceeding.

The government following September 11, however, has used this material witness statute to detain individuals whom the government believes has information concerning a terrorist investigation. It has failed to provide them their rights to counsel, an initial hearing to determine whether the individual poses a flight risk [16], and prevented the individuals from contacting family members that they have been arrested. Most of these “material witnesses” have not been charged with any crime and were proven innocent. return

Myth: Critics are irresponsibly calling for the repeal of the Patriot Act.

Reality: Most responsible critics do not call for the repeal of the Patriot Act. They believe that parts of the Patriot Act are necessary but they support including amendments to the Patriot Act that will restore reasonable checks and balances that will protect civil liberties while ensuring our national security. Such amendments include making explicit that a recipient of a national security letter has the right to file a motion to quash the records demand. They support amendments to the statute to time limit the non-disclosure of receiving a national security letter or a section 215 court order, and to exempt attorney-client communications from the “gag” rule. Attorney General Gonzales stated he also supports such amendments. return

Myth: The Patriot Act is “certainly constitutional.” [17]

Reality: This statement is inaccurate. Two sections of the Patriot Act have been declared unconstitutional. In Doe v. Ashcroft, a federal district court struck down a “national security letter” records power expanded by the section 505(a) of the Patriot Act, noting that the failure to provide any explicit right for a recipient to challenge a such a broad national security letter search order power violated the Fourth Amendment. It also held that the automatic rule that the recipient can tell no one that the recipient has received the order or letter, including any attorney with whom they may want to consult, violated the First Amendment. Judge Marrero, who handed down the decision, noted as an example of the kind of abuse now authorized by the statute that it could be used to issue a NSL to obtain the name of a person who has posted a blog critical of the government, or to obtain a list of the people who have e-mail accounts with a given political organization. Doe struck down in its entirety the national security letter statute that was amended by the Patriot Act, rendering all of section 505(a) inoperative if the decision is upheld on appeal.

In Humanitarian Law Project v. Ashcroft [18], the court held that specific phrases in Title 18 Section 2339A, as amended by the Patriot Act section 805(a)(2)( , violated First Amendment free speech rights and Fifth Amendment due process rights. Section 2339A criminalizes providing "material support or resources" to terrorists and defines material support as including, inter alia, "expert advice or assistance." [19]The plaintiffs in the case sought to provide support to lawful support to organizations labeled as terrorist organizations. The court agreed with the plaintiffs’ argument that the phrase “expert advice or assistance” was vague and it prohibited protect speech activities, such as distributing human rights literature or consulting with an attorney [20]. The court noted that the Patriot Act bans all “expert” advice regardless of the nature of the advice, [21] which assumes that all expert advice is material support to a terrorist organization. Moreover, the court held that the phrase violated due process by failing to give proper notice of what type of conduct was prohibited. [22]

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

[Bottomfeeder 244]

What civil liberty have you been robbed of? The liberty to talk to Pakistani's?

Heck, I talk to Pakistanis at the local convenient store.

My pursuit of happiness replaced with fear of Big Brother looking over my shoulder. Should I make a mistake, fear unending detention. This affects my emotional life and liberty to conduct myself as before, without paranoia of government possibly knowing every damn move I make. That's not liberty, that authoritarianism/totalitarianism.

The creeping totalitarianism we see evolving today is an outgrowth of Marxism, not necessarily in the orthodox socialist sense, but in the re-application of Marxist theory to cultural matters, where the 'official victims' of Western civilization replace the proletariat as the focus of a dualistic struggle for political power. The emerging ideology of the Western, particularly American, ruling classes can, I believe, be described as follows:

-Militarism, Imperialism and Empire in the guise of 'human rights', 'democracy', modernity, universalism, feminism and other leftist shibboleths.

-Corporate Mercantilism (or 'state-capitalism') under the guise of 'free trade'.

-In domestic policy, what I call 'totalitarian humanism' whereby an all-encompassing and unaccountable bureaucracy peers into every corner of society to make sure no one anywhere, anyplace, anytime ever practices 'racism, sexism, homophobia', smoking, 'sex abuse' or other such leftist sins.

-In the realm of law, a police state ostensibly designed to protect everyone from terrorism, crime, drugs, guns, gangs or some other bogeyman of the month.

The kind of state that proponents of this new ideology envision is one where the purpose of local government is to enforce leftist orthodoxy against competing institutions (like families, religions, businesses, unions, clubs, other associations), the purpose of national government is to enforce leftism against local communities, and the purpose of foreign policy is to enforce leftism against "backward" or "reactionary" traditional societies.

“My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.” - Grover Norquist

[Bottomfeeder 244]

You can't cite it because that's against the law too. It's against the law to talk about someone who has been taken away.

The act allows the executive branch of government rather than the judiciary to imprison people and to imprison people indefinitely without charge or trial. The act also makes it an offence to even talk about somebody being imprisoned. One of the more controversial aspects of the legislation is the requirement that a parent, if informed of their child's detention, may not inform any further person including the other parent. This clause applies also to detention of adults.

http://www.answers.com/topic/habeas-corpus

Nice try, BF. The paragraph you quoted refers to Australia, not the United States. Click the link he provided, scroll down to the Wikipedia section, specifically Australia. What is quoted above is the 3rd paragraph. Care to throw any other bullsh*t at us?

That's BF's MO. He posts something as fact, but it's actually totally false, out of context or an opinion of one of his fellow tin-foil hatters.

Bottomfeeder? That You?

What's good for the Britain/Australia is good for the USA, right? Believe me when I say this is happening here too.

[AURaptor 1,126]

The Patriot Act alone can strip you of your rights as an American simply by labeling you as a terroritst. One word used with your name and you are no longer an American citizen protected by the same rights we all have been given by the blood of those who fought for our country in war after war.

I seriously doubt that your claims are true. Again, please back them up.

Raptor, read it for yourself...

USA Patriot Act

How about you be a bit more specific than " read it for yourself ". Citing a specific title and section would be most helpful.

Thanks.

I know, actually having to read what was passed into law is a big burden. You asked for a link, I gave one to you.

I didn't ask you for a 'link', I asked you for a specific support for your claim. Title and section, plase, or I'll know you're full of hot air and can't defend your charge. Merely stating that the P.A. strips us of our rights and freedoms and then posting a link to the entire P.A. does not count as 'proof'.

Thanks for taking the time to prove my point. It's been a complete waste of effort on your part.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

What civil liberty have you been robbed of? The liberty to talk to Pakistani's?

Heck, I talk to Pakistanis at the local convenient store.

My pursuit of happiness replaced with fear of Big Brother looking over my shoulder. Should I make a mistake, fear unending detention. This affects my emotional life and liberty to conduct myself as before, without paranoia of government possibly knowing every damn move I make. That's not liberty, that authoritarianism/totalitarianism.

That's not Bush's fault. It's you own damn fault for listening to kooks like Lew Rockwell and letting those glue sniffing weirdos whos videos you watch on the Youtube pollute your mind with all this X-Files sh*t.