Part of Patriot Act ruled unconstitutional

[Odin]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


That may be so, but I clearly have a more intelligent ass than you.

Yep, and I'm on Mars.

[Capt Dizle]

This "slippery slope" argument has been the bane of law enforcement throughout the history of this country.

By using it you accomplished two things. You win your argument and second, you guarantee a fertile ground for criminals, drug lords, and corrupt politicians.

I yield the point. As long as a majority of Americans want to live in lawless despair, that is just what they will get.

[Ramo]

I have the courage to open my affairs to the light of day. I am not afraid of scrutiny. I have in this one afternoon been branded a racist and called a Nazi simply because I have dared to voice my opinion.

Stop being so melodramatic. Being an obedient slave of the state doesn't take any courage. You were branded a racist because you dismissed the importance of liberty of Kurdish people. You were called a Nazi because you want to take away everyone's freedom.

That may be so, but I clearly have a more intelligent ass than you.

It's not my business if you want to delude yourself.

Quite right. I heard the words terrorist group and Kurds in the same sentence and my mind went to the most famous one. That still didn't answer my question though.

I don't know the answer to your question, I'm not familiar with Kurdish humanitarian organizations.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by jimmytrick No, thats bullshit. I am sick and tired of people's lives ruined by drugs.

My brother fell prey to drugs...smack.

Believe me, bucko, when it comes to anti-drugs sentiment...I am a crusader.

Originally posted by jimmytrick Many if not most of the people who are so shrill about their rights are people who have something to hide, their own drug use or whatever.

Imply as you will, but your sad attempt to play McCarthy on me will derail badly, little soldier.

Your own self-righteousness indicates the same things you accuse of others.

Originally posted by jimmytrick I find it pitiful that people seek to hide their own lawlessness behind the cloak of liberty. It sickens me. I have the courage to open my affairs to the light of day. I am not afraid of scrutiny.

I'd like to see that put to the acid test.

A SWAT team on a 'routine investigation' wrecks your home, tramples your property, then beats you to the wall.

And you would say "thanks, men!"...

Who are you trying to kid here?

Me or yourself?

Originally posted by jimmytrick I have in this one afternoon been branded a racist and called a Nazi simply because I have dared to voice my opinion.

That is poetic reversal.

Originally posted by jimmytrick There is fear here and plenty of it but belongs to those who want to hide and point fingers and call names to divert attention from their own anti-social lifestyles.

Sure thing, Mr Torquemada.

Your blinkered attitude, and almost masochistic desire to get into bed with any Orwellian measures of 'security',
make me wonder exactly how deluded a man would have to be to give his power of self-determination away.

I am glad you are not destined for any sort of power.

(as that would be against your creed of being a submissive citizen, eh?)

[Kirnwaffen]

This "slippery slope" argument has been the bane of law enforcement throughout the history of this country.

By using it you accomplished two things. You win your argument and second, you guarantee a fertile ground for criminals, drug lords, and corrupt politicians.

I yield the point. As long as a majority of Americans want to live in lawless despair, that is just what they will get.

That is purely a matter of perception. If that is how you see things, there is no reason to continue this argument.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


That may be so, but I clearly have a more intelligent ass than you.

And your momma wears combat boots.

I think this post clearly reflects the mentality we are dealing with here...

Hardly worth the bother, really.

[oedo]

people who say they refer to their constitutional rights are always suspicious and should be investigated. keep your country clean from terrorists! always remember 911.

[Bosh]

My brother fell prey to drugs...smack.

Believe me, bucko, when it comes to anti-drugs sentiment...I am a crusader.

So you believe that having him locked up in a cage would have improved his life?

And as far as Jimmy goes:


The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
HL Menken

[Capt Dizle]

I believe drug users (not dealers) should be sentenced to community service (in public wearing distinctive clothing so they can be shamed) on weekends. Something like weekends for 2 years and then doubled per offense.

They should have to pay according to their ability for costs.

[oedo]

jt, do you (occasionally) drink alkohol?

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Boshko
So you believe that having him locked up in a cage would have improved his life?

Listen to the sentimentalist.

Obviously, you have never been stabbed by a junkie for a few items of cash.

Originally posted by Boshko
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
HL Menken

Nice quote.

Do you have an opinion of your own to share?

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by oedo
jt, do you (occasionally) drink alkohol?

And I say yes, and you say AH HAH! Oh no, we are not going there. I support the legalization of pot and am open to legalizing other drugs that have relatively low addiction and damage levels. I do not desire to impose my morality on my fellow men. I do however, understand the destructive nature of many narcotics and I understand the both the social and economic cost these drugs do to our country and I WANT THEM OUT AT ANY COST INCLUDING THE LOSS OF PRIVACY IF THAT IS WHAT IT TAKES.

But I don't really expect any movement on the issue. I am just not going to worry if some drug dealers get swept up in a misuse of the Patriot Act. I would not worry if they got caught up in a flood, or a hurricane or a gas explosion or whatever.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I believe drug users (not dealers) should be sentenced to community service (in public wearing distinctive clothing so they can be shamed) on weekends.

A nice yellow star and striped outfit, maybe?

Originally posted by jimmytrick Something like weekends for 2 years and then doubled per offense.

Then off to Krakow, for liquidation, eh, Heinrich?

Originally posted by jimmytrick They should have to pay according to their ability for costs.

I think the boot camp system works for extreme users.

But your system, when aimed at minor perps...I plainly unworkable.

[curtsibling]

Drink and tobacco should be banned as well as pot/smack/crack/etc.

I go the whole way, not stopping short at the favoured vice, like some others.

[oedo]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
And I say yes, and you say AH HAH! Oh no, we are not going there. I support the legalization of pot and am open to legalizing other drugs that have relatively low addiction and damage levels. I do not desire to impose my morality on my fellow men. I do however, understand the destructive nature of many narcotics and I understand the both the social and economic cost these drugs do to our country and I WANT THEM OUT AT ANY COST INCLUDING THE LOSS OF PRIVACY IF THAT IS WHAT IT TAKES.

after all you´re honest.
next question: did you just drink some alkohol?
l
and curtsibling, just for advice, comparing anyone with Himmler is a serious and tasteless thing which can make any of your points pretty pointless.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by curtsibling
Drink and tobacco should be banned as well as pot/smack/crack/etc.

I go the whole way, not stopping short at the favoured vice, like some others.

That is a pretty idiotic statement. I am free, you nimwit, to do whatever I want to do in this country and I will do it unless and until you can CLEARLY demostrate that whatever I am doing is SUBSTANTIALLY damaging to my fellowman.

Equating smoking and drinking to the use, sale and distribution of substances such as heroin is so nearly moronic as to call the question of your sanity.

[Odin]

JT is such an idiot. He is part of what Sava and I call the Sheeple.

[Odin]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


That is a pretty idiotic statement. I am free, you nimwit, to do whatever I want to do in this country and I will do it unless and until you can CLEARLY demostrate that whatever I am doing is SUBSTANTIALLY damaging to my fellowman.

Equating smoking and drinking to the use, sale and distribution of substances such as heroin is so nearly moronic as to call the question of your sanity.

The only insane one here is you.

Go live in Singapore, thier fascist laws will change you mind really fast.

[Ming]

I think some people need to chill and stop with the personal insults... and if you don't, you might not like my solution.

[Capt Dizle]

Ming. You are right. I was getting a tad defensive. Kinda like being on the short end of a C3C Sid level dogpile. I truely will watch my mouth.

I think this debate is over anywho as I have cleared these misunderstandings up.

[Imran Siddiqui]

JT is such an idiot. He is part of what Sava and I call the Sheeple.

I find this statement ironic .

[Q Classic]

No, thats bullshit. I am sick and tired of people's lives ruined by drugs.

agreed.

Many if not most of the people who are so shrill about their rights are people who have something to hide, their own drug use or whatever.

i love that generalization. i really do. i have nothing to hide. does that mean i feel comfortable with somebody looking over my shoulder at each and every juncture in case i might do some wrong?
the catholic church does enough of that, i don't need good old uncle sam to duplicate the feeling.
besides, what if they start legislating morality? don't think they won't do it, either: they have in the past, and morality isn't something that goes away.
simply put, i don't like the feeling that if i want to be private, i must have something to hide. even if i have nothing to hide, the mere fact that apparently i should feel guilty and not interested in my fellow man or democracy because i don't want my every move scrutinized and recorded is enormously uncomfortable and insulting.

I find it pitiful that people seek to hide their own lawlessness behind the cloak of liberty. It sickens me. I have the courage to open my affairs to the light of day. I am not afraid of scrutiny. I have in this one afternoon been branded a racist and called a Nazi simply because I have dared to voice my opinion. There is fear here and plenty of it but belongs to those who want to hide and point fingers and call names to divert attention from their own anti-social lifestyles.

liberty is not lawlessness.
lawlessness is not liberty.
those two do not equate, and shame on you for trying to link them.

and curt, why are you attacking someone on your own side?

[Edan]

Sorry to rain on your parade, but:

The part in question seems to predate the patriot act and 9/11:

As part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, Congress passed a comprehensive ban on the provision of "material support or resources" to entities that are designated by the United States Government as "foreign terrorist organizations."

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia...le9/91mcrm.htm


It also seems like something that will be fixed by making the language less vague and more specific so that it will "differentiate between impermissible advice on violence and encouraging the use of peaceful, nonviolent means to achieve goals."

On the the Patriot Act itself - I think there needs to be a balance between liberty and security. My opinion isn't that we should scrap it entirely, or that we should keep it as it is. I think we need to carefully inspect each provision of the act and see how it has or hasn't been used in the last two years and see what we can take from it thats good, change what needs to be changed and eliminate what has been bad. For every part of the act we need to ask: Has the provision been used at all in the last two years? If not, is there any concrete justification for keeping it? Has the provision been abused, or does it have a good risk of being abused? If so, put safeguards or limitations to prevent abused, or eliminate it. Has it produced positive results? How do the positives compare to the negatives in terms of cost vs payoff. Etc, etc.

Oh, and one final thing. The "Patriot Act" has to be the most pompous, stupid, annoying, self serving propogandic name I can remember in a long time. It make the name "Operation Enduring Freedom" sound good by comparison.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Edan
Sorry to rain on your parade, but:

The part in question seems to predate the patriot act and 9/11:

Ramo: Is this the same case or not? This would seem to point to the conclusion that it is.

[Ramo]

I guess AP lied...

[yavoon]

I will dance the mamba on the patriot acts grave

[Edan]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Ramo: Is this the same case or not? This would seem to point to the conclusion that it is.

Whoops - that'll teach me for not reading the entire thread.

I'm not sure if thats the same case or not, my point is that the law (or, possibly, an earlier, very simmilar version) existed before 9/11 - the problem here is not with the "Patriot Act" or with an overreaction due to 9/11. It's with a vague, poorly written law.

[Drake Tungsten]

A federal judge has declared unconstitutional a portion of the USA Patriot Act that bars giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated international terrorist organizations.

Why is this a good thing? Call me crazy, but I really don't want international terrorist organizations receiving expert advice and assistance...

[Ramo]

Err.. wait, what am I thinking? Eden, why do you say that this is the relevant clause being declared unconstitutional? I seem to recall that the Patriot Act has punishments for people who belong to/aid groups Ashcroft considers terrorists. And besides, the AP story mentions that it was part of the Patriot Act that was repealed (and this story has been picked up by everyone else). I don't think an article as erroneous as you suggest it is usually is able to get around so well.

[Ramo]

Why is this a good thing? Call me crazy, but I really don't want international terrorist organizations receiving expert advice and assistance..

These guys were trying to help make peace between Kurdish militants and the Turks. Are you seriously telling me that they deserve 15 years in prison?