• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

USA using Patriot Act against its own citizens

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
93,490
Reaction score
68,215
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFVQ0HZz2mc"]YouTube - USA using Patriot Act against its own citizens[/ame]

Youtube vid of a news report. It's kinda crazy, apparently nothing was found but the kid is still in jail. Actually, I was trying to find follow ups to see if anything else has come of this just yet or not. Regardless, the use of the PA against our citizens, it may not be "common place" as far as we know now, but it does seem the government will use it against us if it suits their cause. Scary stuff.
 
I saw this I think on CNN's website and was pissed.

Well since he's labeled a enemy to America isn't it about time we start torturing him? I mean, what happens if he has information about an imminent attack on American soil?
 
That's messed up. I do think teenage bomb threats warrant an arrest however I do not see any reason whatsoever to hold the kid without a trial, keep moving the hearing dates back, and withholding any and all info from the parents. We don't have even half the story let alone the whole story but what we know thus far is concerning.
 
I saw this I think on CNN's website and was pissed.

Well since he's labeled a enemy to America isn't it about time we start torturing him? I mean, what happens if he has information about an imminent attack on American soil?


No. you didn't see it on CNN, or on any other mainstream media site. For some reason the "story" is only available from fringe media.
 
Alot of people called it... when they were worried about the gov using this legislation against it's own citizenry...

The government said.. "aww **** nigga, you don't need to worry, we won't use it on you." and almost all of the people opposed to it... stopped opposing it.
 
No. you didn't see it on CNN, or on any other mainstream media site. For some reason the "story" is only available from fringe media.

Um, no. Thanks for trying to play psychic but you are wrong. I believe it WAS CNN I saw this on first. Even if it wasn't on CNN, a local news station is a "fringe" news source now?

Thanks for trying to be witty though, too bad it didn't work out to well.
 
Last edited:
Oh the ACLU is going to have a field day with this. :lol:
 
At least the PA is being used for somewhat more in line with what it was created for.

God knows trying to justify the use of the PA against tax dodging strip clubs takes quite a stretch of logic.
 
That's messed up. I do think teenage bomb threats warrant an arrest however I do not see any reason whatsoever to hold the kid without a trial, keep moving the hearing dates back, and withholding any and all info from the parents. We don't have even half the story let alone the whole story but what we know thus far is concerning.

I'd say that teenage bomb threats warrant a visit from the cops, maybe not arrest. I'd rather them make sure the threat is credible first.

But hey, this guys a terrorist and not giving information on his bombs. I say it's high time to waterboard this punk!
 
Yes, we don't have the full story. We have a one sided news story so far with the sources being the Mother of the child, who is understandably upset, and the Lawyer for said child whose duty is to protect him and fight for his innocence.

They keep saying "The Patriot Act". Please, what section specifically? What heading are they siting for holding him. This is like saying someone is being held due to FISA. Its an dozens and dozens of pages Act with more new laws and changes to law that you can shake a stick at. If all you say is "The Patriot Act" how exactly is anyone even supposed to be able to check your story to see if its even legitimate or to know the FACTS about the case.

Here are some facts.

Lets see...

The mother complained there were guns there...nothing to do with the Patriot Act

Officers storming a house and arresting someone and presenting a SEARCH WARRANT...nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

Making bomb threats is illegal, even if you can't actually MAKE the bombs...nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

Gag Orders on federal cases are not the domain solely of the Patriot Act.

While she can claim "Stealing IP" addresses, and that may very well be legitimate, there are NUMEROUS ways to check if such things are potentially true or not.

I'm trying to remember which portion of the Act actually deals with potential hearings and the ability to hold people for extended times and I do hope the ACLU or his lawyer manages to review that as it is an issue if I remember correctly that needs to be addressed.

However, I'm trying to do research on this kid and I'm coming up with Zero results. For something presumed to have happened I'm having issues with why there would be absolutely zero information out about it. If anyone has any links please direct me to them as I'd like to look into this more.

So far, the woman and the media seems to be doing what's typical with the Patriot Act. Over exaggerating. "Because it falls under the Patriot act a lot of the usual rights don't apply here."

Really? I see an issue perhaps with a speedy initial hearing. However, where's this "a lot", a lot implies more than even 2 or 3. I see one potential right. His arrest wasn't anything to do with the patriot act, the search was completely within the law as it wasn't even a "warrantless one" like so many people dislike, and his accused crime isn't even one created by the Patriot Act but was one around prior to that.

Interested to find out more about this case and having a decent knowledge of the Act I'm going to hold judgement as this seems like very typical media hysteria, over exaggeration, hyperbole, and hyping up. Not to say there's not a legitimate case here, but much like the "183 waterboarding" story and the swine flu, it seems like in typical Media Fashion they've taken something that may be somewhat bad and trying to make it out to be this great giant thing when its not.
 
I'd say that teenage bomb threats warrant a visit from the cops, maybe not arrest. I'd rather them make sure the threat is credible first.

But hey, this guys a terrorist and not giving information on his bombs. I say it's high time to waterboard this punk!

Please link me to the information concerning the specifics of the bomb threats. How many, to where, what was said, etc. Please provide me links to the information concerning any search done into the supposed "stolen IP address". Please provide me links to any of the information concerning what facts they had to lead them to believe this kid was legitimately the one making these threads or not, and for what reason.

I mean, you seem like you know all the facts of this case enough to say this kid is completely innocent of any crime, being completely and utterly mistreated, and the government is 100% wrong so I'm assuming you have facts to back this up rather than just seeing "OMFG THEY SAID PATRIOT ACT HANG'EM!"
 
Yes, we don't have the full story. We have a one sided news story so far with the sources being the Mother of the child, who is understandably upset, and the Lawyer for said child whose duty is to protect him and fight for his innocence.

They keep saying "The Patriot Act". Please, what section specifically? What heading are they siting for holding him. This is like saying someone is being held due to FISA. Its an dozens and dozens of pages Act with more new laws and changes to law that you can shake a stick at. If all you say is "The Patriot Act" how exactly is anyone even supposed to be able to check your story to see if its even legitimate or to know the FACTS about the case.

Here are some facts.

Lets see...

The mother complained there were guns there...nothing to do with the Patriot Act

Officers storming a house and arresting someone and presenting a SEARCH WARRANT...nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

Making bomb threats is illegal, even if you can't actually MAKE the bombs...nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

Gag Orders on federal cases are not the domain solely of the Patriot Act.

While she can claim "Stealing IP" addresses, and that may very well be legitimate, there are NUMEROUS ways to check if such things are potentially true or not.

I'm trying to remember which portion of the Act actually deals with potential hearings and the ability to hold people for extended times and I do hope the ACLU or his lawyer manages to review that as it is an issue if I remember correctly that needs to be addressed.

However, I'm trying to do research on this kid and I'm coming up with Zero results. For something presumed to have happened I'm having issues with why there would be absolutely zero information out about it. If anyone has any links please direct me to them as I'd like to look into this more.

So far, the woman and the media seems to be doing what's typical with the Patriot Act. Over exaggerating. "Because it falls under the Patriot act a lot of the usual rights don't apply here."

Really? I see an issue perhaps with a speedy initial hearing. However, where's this "a lot", a lot implies more than even 2 or 3. I see one potential right. His arrest wasn't anything to do with the patriot act, the search was completely within the law as it wasn't even a "warrantless one" like so many people dislike, and his accused crime isn't even one created by the Patriot Act but was one around prior to that.

Interested to find out more about this case and having a decent knowledge of the Act I'm going to hold judgement as this seems like very typical media hysteria, over exaggeration, hyperbole, and hyping up. Not to say there's not a legitimate case here, but much like the "183 waterboarding" story and the swine flu, it seems like in typical Media Fashion they've taken something that may be somewhat bad and trying to make it out to be this great giant thing when its not.

Fair assessment. The bothersome part I found was that apparently this kid has been in jail for over two months with what is reported as minimal contact with parents. There isn't much to go on, because most everything is not being talked about by anyone from the government (which is kinda discomforting in the least, I'd say). The PA is brought up in terms of his trial and incarceration, which is the suspect part. It's reasonable to think that by this point, months later, a normal police investigation would have at least yielded some amount of information which could be shared with the public. It's odd then that after all this time there's no news of the case going forward, the child being offered bond, having proper contact with parents/lawyers, etc.

So yes, we don't have all information; but there are things which don't quite add up here. American citizen in jail for more than 2 months, with no hearings or information of bond being set or denied, etc. There's something rotten in the state of Denmark.
 
Last edited:
Please link me to the information concerning the specifics of the bomb threats. How many, to where, what was said, etc. Please provide me links to the information concerning any search done into the supposed "stolen IP address". Please provide me links to any of the information concerning what facts they had to lead them to believe this kid was legitimately the one making these threads or not, and for what reason.

I mean, you seem like you know all the facts of this case enough to say this kid is completely innocent of any crime, being completely and utterly mistreated, and the government is 100% wrong so I'm assuming you have facts to back this up rather than just seeing "OMFG THEY SAID PATRIOT ACT HANG'EM!"

That's the problem, isn't it. Shouldn't there be some of these facts? Instead of a kid in jail for 2 months? Where are these facts? Fact is, American citizen in jail and there's no information. What does that lend one to believe? Maybe he is some criminal mastermind and the government has to keep quiet to build a case. Maybe the government overreacted and now a kid suffers. But in normal police investigations, in two months time some amount of info is put out there. And in that time people usually have at least bond hearings. In fact, I think they have to have bond hearings and such rather quickly; only through the deployment of something like the PA can that be delayed indefinitely. So where's the information on why he's being held? Aren't we supposed to be privy to that? What are the exact charges? What was bond, was it set or denied or was that held at all? Gag orders are fine, but the utter lack of movement and information seems pretty damned fishy.

Fact is that it is the GOVERNMENT which must present the facts and prove their case, not the individual. Let's keep that in mind, and let's keep in mind that this is an American citizen so certain rights are to be provided, including right to speedy trial. The PA does away with that, council, trial, habeas corpus. There's enough here to suspect that something not quite right has gone down. The government has to prove its case, not the other way around...well maybe the PA gets rid of that restriction too.

Also, the waterboarding things was mostly in jest. Learn to take a joke.
 
Last edited:
Fair assessment. The bothersome part I found was that apparently this kid has been in jail for over two months with what is reported as minimal contact with parents. There isn't much to go on, because most everything is not being talked about by anyone from the government (which is kinda discomforting in the least, I'd say).

Which is due to....which section of the Patriot Act? I mean, is there ANY proof at all that is due to the Patriot Act and not just being said that way because it makes a more sensational story?

Even then, how much contact does a person in prison typically have with someone outside? He's apparently not held near the house, which is troublesome but not something specific to the patriot act. Is the mom just simply not ALLOWED to go visit him, or is it too far away for constant visits. Is he allowed less phone calls to the outside world than other people in prison, or is it the same but they just don't mention this. I don't know these things and I can find any further information on the case to find out.

The PA is brought up in terms of his trial and incarceration, which is the suspect part.

Except its not. The PA is brought up in terms of the ENTIRE story. The ENTIRE story started off by talking about the Patriot stripping away "a lot" of this kids rights. It started off with it being under the Specter of the Patriot Act. I'd have little to no real issue with the story if they ended up doing the same story without the asinine opening and said "Now, 2 months later, he still hasn't had a trial due to, what his lawyer claims, a law found within the Patriot Act". That would've been the PA brought up in terms of his trial and incarceration...the story brought it up in context of the entire case.

It's reasonable to think that by this point, months later, a normal police investigation would have at least yielded some amount of information which could be shared with the public.

Are all FBI cases open to the public as they are being undergone, let alone every police case? To my knowledge, that's not the case and wasn't the case even before Patriot Act.

Again, my issue is not stating that the kid is wrong in being upset with how things went down, my issue is with people seemingly just going "Oh its the Patriot Act" based on......well, next to nothing save for the Lawyer mentioning the Patriot Act.

It's odd then that after all this time there's no news of the case going forward, the child being offered bond, having proper contact with parents/lawyers, etc.

So yes, we don't have all information; but there are things which don't quite add up here. American citizen in jail for more than 2 months, with no hearings or information of bond being set or denied, etc. There's something rotten in the state of Denmark.

Yes, something does seem odd. The difference is, you see that and immediately go "The Government has done wrong. The Patriot Act is Evil! Its the Patriot Act's fault!"

I go "Hmm, that's odd. I'd like some more info. Its curious that there's no more information out on this because it either means there's absolutely ZERO coming out about the story or the story was overblown and thus its no longer on any news organization or bloggers radar".

You immediately go the "Government is bad, patriot act is bad" route because it seems "odd", while I can see how it being "odd" that no more information has came out could literally go either way.

I'm not saying the governments right, I'm not saying the kids guilty of ANYTHING, but I'm also not saying somehow this has been a giant abuse of "a lot" of his rights due specifically to the Patriot Act.

Fact is that it is the GOVERNMENT which must present the facts and prove their case, not the individual.

Indeed, and under the court of law he's presumed innocent until proven guilty.

For individual citizens we're not required to keep that mindset, and I keep that mindset in part with the government as well. I do not label this kid guilty, but I also don't label the U.S. Government and the Patriot 100% guilty with no evidence either.

Let's keep that in mind, and let's keep in mind that this is an American citizen so certain rights are to be provided, including right to speedy trial. The PA does away with that, council, trial, habeas corpus.

Please point me to the section in the Patriot Act please. I'm very anxious to read the wording concerning this. Especially since he HAS council. And while it has been delayed there is a hearing set which means there has no been complete removal of habeas corpus from him yet. So, section please.

And, as I already acknowledged in my initial point, there likely IS an issue with the Patriot Act here and if it ends up being the case I hope these guys win and I hope that section of it is stricken down, as it should be.

My issue is the presentation of the news organization and the hysterical way people are reacting to it under the "spectre" of the Patriot Act. To me, not having a speedy trial is not an example of "A lot" of rights being lost and the majority of what's happened that we know about on this case has NOTHING to do with the PA.

There's enough here to suspect that something not quite right has gone down. The government has to prove its case, not the other way around...well maybe the PA gets rid of that restriction too.

I agree, some things look fishy here. To me, things are looking fishy on both sides. In regards to a rights violation in terms of a speedy trial I agree with you, and stated already. In regards to "a lot" of his other rights being violated SPECIFICALLY due to the Patriot Act, I've seen ZERO evidence to even lead me to assuming it. The ONLY way for me to assume it is if I'm simply LOOKING for a reason to complain and degrade the Patriot Act and thus whenever I see anything that is going wrong with law enforcement I say "Its the Patriot Acts Fault" regardless of any actual information IN the act that actually is at fault and regardless of whether or not the exact same thing could happen even before the Patriot Act.

My issue is people USING this kid to hype up their anti-Patriot Act agenda and the media USING this kid to hyper sensationalize a situation because "Patriot Act" is a nice big scary word that people don't understand so they can exaggerate and outright lie out of ignorance about in hopes of getting the public whipped up into a ferver.

Also, the waterboarding things was mostly in jest. Learn to take a joke.

Yes, I got that it was a joke. That's why nothing I posted really responded to that portion.
 
Thanks for the news article. I have FAR less issue with that as in there they at least frame it from a reporting stand point that the main affront in regards to the Patriot Act was the detainment where as the TV story attempted to frame the entire thing as being a Patriot Act issue with "a lot" of rights being taken away.

I will disagree STRONGLY with the lawyer, but can't blame him because its his job to defend his client.

"They're saying that 'We feel this individual is a terrorist or an enemy combatant against the United States, and we're going to suspend all of those due process rights because this person is an enemy of the United States," said Dan Boyce, a defense attorney and former U.S. attorney not connected to the Lundeby case."

No, they're not saying that at all. This is what the Media and those that stir up paranoia and fear about the Patriot Act say that it says. The LARGE amount of the provisions do NOT deal directly with "Terrorists" or enemy combatants. While some of it does, its not as large as people are lead to believe by most people whipping up fear about the Patriot Act and the way its been presented by the Media, and yes politicians, since day one.

The vast majority of things were steps taken to bring our intelligence code up to modern technological standards and to enhance the ability of law enforcement to deal with specific situations that were used as loopholes to get around previous law. There were, and still are, things that were controversial and unconstitutional in it and they have been steadily sunsetting and stripped out of the Act and my hope is if there is something involving this case that falls into that category I hope its stripped out as well. HOWEVER, to imply that somehow the Patriot Act is meant to only deal with "terrorists" or "enemy combatants" is either meaning someone is COMPLETELY ignorant of what the bill actually says or is simply massaging the issue and playing off peoples perceptions in hopes of winning the public and in time the court to his side. My guess, as a good lawyer, its the later, because I fail to believe he's so ignorant of the law that he has not given the Act at least a once over and saw that a large swatch of it does not in any way signify it is only for use on terrorist and enemy combatants.
 
I think right to speedy trial and such is quintessential. Maybe I'm crazy on that one, but I view it as a HUGE right and one that necessarily must be upheld. I definitely didn't get out of the article what you claim to have. The use of the Patriot Act seems to me to specifically refer to incarceration, and I didn't see information that he had council. The former US attorney isn't his council I don't believe. When something is amiss and it is on the government's side, I will blame them and hold them in suspicion. Sorry. It's not the kids idea to remain in prison, the one keeping him there is the government. There is no information because of the government.

So yeah, I will agree that I read this and see something seriously amiss and I will question the government and the laws it used to obtain its will. You will accept it and see if the government will in the future give you the information to make up your mind, but till that point it's whatever it is till the government tells you what it is. I'm a little concerned that an American citizen can be kept in prison so long without notice of charges, bond, hearings, etc. All sorts of matters of public record, or at least private seemingly not done. Had the kid been denied bond, it could be reported he was denied bond. If he was released and put on gag order, that could be reported too. But there's nothing. Sorry, but I think that the indefinite incarceration of citizens with little to no information on why they are being held seemingly without trial is a big misstep with the government.

Innocent until proven guilty only matters if you're given court dates. If they keep you in jail without access to that which you by right have; it matters little if you're innocent or guilty or what the government considers you to be. So I blame the government, yes. Tell me when the government was meant to be trusted. Why should I when it seems that they are the one at fault? I blame the laws they use to get their way, yes. Why should I trust the laws made by government which expand their scope and power beyond that which they were originally given? Under normal law, they could not have held that kid there for 2 months and there still be no information, there's be some. Even if there had to be a gag order for court purposes, things on bond hearings, lawyers, etc would be public. Nothing. Maybe you're willing to sit back and play it cool and wait till the government allows the information to get to you. But I'm going to be disconcerted with the fact that apparently one of our own countrymen is behind bars and there's no indication that his rights have been upheld. I'm not going to trust the government or its power grabbing laws.

Maybe you're right and I'm wrong on that, it's a distinct possibility. But I'm not trusting the government till they prove themselves otherwise with me. Individuals are innocent until proven guilty, the government is guilty until proven innocent.
 
Um, no. Thanks for trying to play psychic but you are wrong. I believe it WAS CNN I saw this on first. Even if it wasn't on CNN, a local news station is a "fringe" news source now?

Thanks for trying to be witty though, too bad it didn't work out to well.

1 - I searched the CNN site for news or video of this and got nothing. You did not see it on CNN

2 - the story as reported by the local station contained almost no information. It was badly reported, badly written and badly sourced.

3 - If this was a real story, the mainstream media would be all over it, despite your conspiratorial belief that they would "hide" it.

4 - the Patriot Act was cooked up by Republicans, and I didn't hear the right whining about it when Bush was president

5 - When I am "trying to be witty" I will send you an PM to alert you.
 
1 - I searched the CNN site for news or video of this and got nothing. You did not see it on CNN

2 - the story as reported by the local station contained almost no information. It was badly reported, badly written and badly sourced.

3 - If this was a real story, the mainstream media would be all over it, despite your conspiratorial belief that they would "hide" it.

4 - the Patriot Act was cooked up by Republicans, and I didn't hear the right whining about it when Bush was president


5 - When I am "trying to be witty" I will send you an PM to alert you.

One bone of contention. While Republicans may've "cooked it up", Democrats were complicite in its passing.

Second, to be fair, some in this thread WERE critical of it even with when Bush was President. Ikari one of the main ones. Republicans weren't that down on it, but Libertarians for the most part HATED the thing.

Now, I was one to defend portions of it under Bush and I'll continue defend those portions under Obama. But, as has came up in multiple threads on the Patriot Act, I've got a really funky approach to it that seems to put me at odds with people on both sides (it doesn't help that few things infuriate me as much as people ignorant of the realities of the act that simply act solely off a single source or two from only one side of it that are giving slanted and opinion filled views of it).
 
Zyphilin, I have a question.

I have been informed that, under the Patriot Act:
1. The President or Atty Gen can, by signing the appropriate form, declare an individual to be an "enemy combatant". No evidence is required, just that signature on that form.
2. Having been so declared, the individual (even if a US citizen) may be taken into custody, held without charges, without a lawyer, without phone calls, etc indefinately.

Is this correct?

G.
 
Zyphilin, I have a question.

I have been informed that, under the Patriot Act:
1. The President or Atty Gen can, by signing the appropriate form, declare an individual to be an "enemy combatant". No evidence is required, just that signature on that form.
2. Having been so declared, the individual (even if a US citizen) may be taken into custody, held without charges, without a lawyer, without phone calls, etc indefinately.

Is this correct?

G.

I heard this as well, however during the course of searching for things for my Senior Thesis I never once came upon a direct reference to this long stated "issue" with the Patriot Act, even from extremely critical sources including the ACLU.

The closest I saw to something like this was the redefinition of what constituted a "terrorist", which in pure theory I didn't have an issue with the definition, but in practice I thought it was FAR to broad and theoretically one could be considered a "terrorist" under a STRICT reading of the section if you were disturbing the peace while at a political protest. I'll come back to this and update with what section it is in particular once I can look back at my Thesis.

Now, I'm not saying this provision is not found within the Patriot Act, it may very well be. I've read a large portion of the Act but the thing is gigantic and in many places a mish mash of legal terms and simple small adendums to entirely separate laws. I focused most specifically on the sections that were most routinely brought up as problematic by its critics.

Sorry I couldn't give you anything more specific. If you find or have an article talking about it that gives some reference to where abouts in the Act to look I'd gladly research it. However, at the time of my thesis (which was a few years ago; thankfully some things have been stripped out since then or sunset) that was a popular "complaint" typically found in political circles and message boards but one I never found within a legitimized source critiquing and criticizing the Act.
 
One bone of contention. While Republicans may've "cooked it up", Democrats were complicite in its passing.

Yeah, there's a shocker. The status quo voting to increase the power of government.

I think in the end, the PA should be scrapped. We could do better with just making some things within the already establish bureaucracy faster without allowing such questionable legislation like the PA into existence. There may be "parts" that are ok (don't really buy it, I don't think the PA was necessary and the name alone makes me think it's nothing but propaganda and government expansion), but if there are any questionable parts, the whole of it needs to be chucked. Let's say what happened here turns out to be true and more. The boy did nothing wrong, the government overreacted, used the PA to deny this boy his rights and access to council, trial, etc. That alone, even if it were the only abuse, is enough to say the PA should be scrapped. Under no condition should the government be able to act like that against its own citizens and doing it once shows that they are willing to do it should it fit there needs.

There was some time ago an audit of the FBI and their use of warrantless searches and such and they found HUGE abuse. Government when it gets power, especially power it shouldn't have, will abuse it. Guaranteed. You can bet your bottom dollar on it, it will happen every time. Maybe not right off the bat, but it will be abused as much as the government can get away with it. It's why we are to distrust the government, constrain the government, restrict how it can act especially as it relates to the rights and liberties of the individual. The PA, the Real ID Act, all that crap needs to be scrapped. ASAP.
 
Government when it gets power, especially power it shouldn't have, will abuse it. Guaranteed. You can bet your bottom dollar on it, it will happen every time. Maybe not right off the bat, but it will be abused as much as the government can get away with it. It's why we are to distrust the government, constrain the government, restrict how it can act especially as it relates to the rights and liberties of the individual. The PA, the Real ID Act, all that crap needs to be scrapped. ASAP.


Bing. Nail on the head. Practically self-evident, even, and the reason I was never happy about the PA from the first I heard about it.
 
It would be idiotic to scrap the entire Patriot. Absolutely patently idiotic. The ONLY way I could even remotely agree with that was if:

There was a 95% likely chance that the 90%+ of it that is good, necessary, useful updates to the intelligence laws on the books would be voted back in immediately

OR

People pushing for it ALSO are pushing for the entire FISA legislation to be overturned and scrapped AND that TITLE III of the OMNIBUS Crime Control and Safe Streets Act is also over turned and scraped.

Its foolish and absolutely fool hearty to try and use FOURTY year old intelligence law to try to determine how law enforcement should go forward with such things in a world with technology that wasn't even DREAMED of by most people at that point in time. The amount of loop holes and grey areas in the law at that time that could be manipulated by BOTH sides was FAR to large.

This idiotic notion that we need to scrap a law because there's a potential for abuse with a portion of it is beyond me. Shall we get rid of the entire federal law enforcement completely? Because having it opens us up to abuse. Get rid of it. All of it. Right? I'm sure you're for that ikari? Actually, get rid of the military why we're at it. The military can be open to abuse by the government so we should get rid of it. If the FBI, without the Patriot, did this would you say "Scrap the FBI"? How do you pick and choose what emotional over reacting scape goat you want to choose Ikari?

This idiotic ignorant scare tacting on the part of most people, especially people who 9 out of 10 times do NOTHING but parrot talking points from whatever political websites and sources they choose that are directly in line with their thinking without EVER giving a legitimate attempt to view the information from the other side and get actual REALISTIC fact, is more offensive to me than the act itself by a large margin as its people acting purely and fully off faulty or extremely biased information and emotion and nothing more.

How things are working with the Patriot Act is the correct way it should be done, is the best way it should be done, and is how it should continue. The only change I would suggest would be to possibly push for it to go faster which would mean pressure for people on their members of Congress to push for them to pass laws editing the questionable portions. But what Ikari is suggesting is the political equivalent of removing an entire arm because there's a problem with the tip of the finger.
 
How exactly has the Patriot Act had a real positive impact on the nation? I agree that it does contain useful laws that should be keep, but what exactly is so important about it that we should accept its suppression of civil rights? Being able to hold U.S. citizens without trial is far more dangerous than the minor benefits that the patriot act brings.
 
Back
Top Bottom