USA Patriot Act: The Sequel - Page 3

Ramo · February 8, 2003, 03:20

1. A terrorist organization is whatever the hell Ashcroft wants it to be (if the definition of a terrorist organization is the same as the one used in the Patriot Act). It isn't necessarily limited to al-Qaeda, etc.
2. Why is it justified to steal all their liberties if they fund al-Qaeda-type groups? Why is it ok to take away their due process? If they do something wrong, they should be able to be convicted under already existing laws, right?

Imran Siddiqui · February 8, 2003, 03:22

Ramo, this type of legislation has precedents in history. This time it is just changed to 'terrorism'.

People that funded Nazi's during WW2 had their citizenship taken away. That didn't doom the United States to dicatorship and neither will this.

Tempest in a teapot.

Ramo · February 8, 2003, 03:35

1. Yes, this type of legislation has existed before (hell, look at the Patriot Act - this is simply an extension of it). If you haven't noticed, in the history of the US particularly in the last century, the gov't has been rather authoritarian with respect to dissidents. It does lead to bad things (do you really want me to give you examples?). Give the gov't authority, and it will exercise it.
2. Ashcroft has wide discretion over what "terrorism" is. It's clear he can't be trusted with this discretion. I wouldn't trust anyone with this type of discretion.

DuncanK · February 8, 2003, 03:39

Is it actually possible that you could be secretly arrested, not given due process and stripped of your citizenship if this law were to pass?

MadMonk,

I'm scared too. I think a lot of people are. It seems like we have two enemies now. The terrorists and parts of the government.

Ramo · February 8, 2003, 03:41

Yep, but the order would be stripped of your citizenship, secretly arrested, and then not given due process.

Imran Siddiqui · February 8, 2003, 03:46

Ramo, what I'm trying to say is that people on the left here are trying to portray this as something totally new that Bush has come up with to turn the US into Nazi Germany, not realizing some of their favorite Presidents (Lincoln and FDR) have done similar things.

I'm not condoning it, just pointing out the prior legislation didn't lead to Fascism, and neither will this.

Ramo · February 8, 2003, 03:51

Fascism is a specific political system.

Legislation like the Patriot Act and this new bill will lead to very bad things. Just as it has in the past. Whether "leftist" Presidents have done it or not is pretty much irrelevent.

Proteus_MST · February 8, 2003, 03:58

Reminds me somehow of the Witch-Hunt for Communists during the McCarthy - Era

Imran Siddiqui · February 8, 2003, 03:58

The sky won't fall. Blackshirts won't march in Washington. There will be free elections.

I still think it is a tempest in a teapot. I'd take the protestations more seriously if there wasn't such hyperbole attached to it.

DuncanK · February 8, 2003, 04:01

I don't think Bush is trying to turn the US into a fascist state in the sense that Germany was fascist. However, the legislation is very dangerous and could result in the US practicing fascism. My believe is if you give the government the right to do these things they will. And I guarantee you that they will be using this law against more people than the terrorists.

Imran Siddiqui · February 8, 2003, 04:04

Not to pick on you Duncan, but I'm amused by the lefties that look at this and say if you give the government an inch, they'll take a yard, but they don't apply this to government power over the economy.

Just an observation

.

DuncanK · February 8, 2003, 04:06

Hey, I thought you weren't an anarcho-capitalist

Imran Siddiqui · February 8, 2003, 04:08

I'm not... but I suscribe to the theory that if you give the government an inch, they'll take a yard, so you give the government as few inches as you can get away with.

DuncanK · February 8, 2003, 04:10

You can't argue both ways. I won't let you get away with it

Imran Siddiqui · February 8, 2003, 04:12

I'm arguing one way and one way only. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

DuncanK · February 8, 2003, 04:16

No, yesterday you said you weren't an anarcho-capitalist, and now you are critisizing lefties for supporting government involvement in the economy.

Imran Siddiqui · February 8, 2003, 04:18

So one can only argue for a large overbearing government or no government at all?

Wonderful logic there Duncan

.

You've heard of this thing called minarchism, yes? Or how about the Third Way?

By the way, most Democrats aren't anarcho-capitalists but critisize socialist spending for government. Do they want it 'both ways'?

DuncanK · February 8, 2003, 04:22

Well, if you agree that the economy is not self-regulating, than you must entertain all ideas about regulation with out bringing up some nonsense about the invisible hand.

Ramo · February 8, 2003, 04:22

Quote:

The sky won't fall. Blackshirts won't march in Washington. There will be free elections.
I still think it is a tempest in a teapot. I'd take the protestations more seriously if there wasn't such hyperbole attached to it.

The US is already doing incredibly authoritarian things with respect to immigrants. Immigrants are simply not free in this country. And their rights in practice are eroding nearly as quickly as their rights on paper. Many immigrants I know (particularly those from Islamic countries) are genuinely scared of expressing their politics publicly (protests, and the like). And if I were in their position, frankly, I would feel the same way. Who needs blackshirts to silence dissent when the gov't has this nifty method already?

This legislation (or more specifically, this pattern of legislation) means that we'll start regularly doing the same things to citizens. Maybe not in a year, and maybe not in five, but eventually. The Smith Act heralded McCarthyism even if it came a decade later. What will these pieces of legislation herald?

Imran Siddiqui · February 8, 2003, 04:27

Quote:

Well, if you agree that the economy is not self-regulating, than you must entertain all ideas about regulation with out bringing up some nonsense about the invisible hand.

Like I said, there are more options than 1) no regulation at all or 2) total regulation.

Stop seeing the world in black and white.

Quote:

The Smith Act heralded McCarthyism even if it came a decade later.

It took a McCarthy to have McCarthyism. The other people in power at the time had no inclination to do what he did, but after he became a God-damned hero, you couldn't speak against it.

Ramo · February 8, 2003, 04:37

McCarthyism started before McCarthy. It started with Truman (and Hoover) in '49, when Truman decided commies should prosecuted, and continued after McCarthy was gone till SCOTUS finally put its foot down. If McCarthy wasn't stupid enough to go after the military and the Democrats, who knows how far it would've gone?

uh Clem · February 8, 2003, 08:11

McCarthy didn't even mention Communism until 1950. The party was in full swing long before arrived.

What made "McCarthyism" detestable (well, aside from Joe McCarthy himself) was the fact that it was aimed not at Communism but at the idea of dissent itself. It was the notion that Real Patriots shut up and do as they're told by authority.

Not that we'd ever see anything like that today...

BTW, some of you may recall two of the current administration's heavyweights, Cheney & Rumsfeld, declaring last year that another major terror attack in the US was "inevitable." They both used almost exactly the same words, and within a day or two of each other.

"Major" would mean noocyular or dirty bomb or chem/bio or a combination, whatever...something far uglier and more outrageous than 9/11.

I just hope that when (not if) that happens, when the Reichstag is set on fire or whatever, that we have the appropriate legislation to deal with it close at hand.

Jac de Molay · February 8, 2003, 10:01

The common thread through all of these measures - Patriot Act, TIA, TIPS, the constant warnings- is the Administration is capitalizing on fear.

People are going to wake up one day and realize that a truly free society can't be a truly safe one. Hopefully, it won't be too late, because right now most people are too anxious or apathetic to question the gradual erosion of liberties.

Thorn · February 8, 2003, 11:11

Quote:

not realizing some of their favorite Presidents (Lincoln

Here in the south that name still incites fury. He was a terrible president, almost a dictator.

Velociryx · February 8, 2003, 11:20

Responsible legislation requires accountability.

This is a simple case of "Who watches the watchers?"

With this legislation, and it's older brother, the answer is, quite simply, 'no one.'

There is no accountability here, there is no check against possible abuses of the power they have given large, unelected government agencies, and there is no guarantee that they'll use their powers responsibly. In fact, there is historical evidence that points to the contrary.

That is unacceptable. No matter how well intended, it is unacceptable.

Shall we wait until there are goose-stepping "Patriot Squads" on every corner of every town in America before we realize what the legislation means to liberty and freedom?

I say that if they are going to try to ram this legislation down our throats, then the very least they could do would be to be honest about their goals, and amend it so that on the day that this "patriotic" document is made law, the first thing that is done is to tear down and dismantle the Liberty Bell, and other symbols of freedom in this country.

-=Vel=-

Cedayon · February 8, 2003, 11:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Responsible legislation requires accountability.

This is a simple case of "Who watches the watchers?"

I agree wholeheartedly here...

The problem isn't necessarily that people like Ashcroft will be able to (among other things) strip a "terrorist" of his/her citizenship and rights, detain them indefinately without disclosing the detention to anyone, deport them if they want, put them on trial (probably Kangaroo, with ex parte meetings with the judge), and even administer the death penalty...

The problem isn't even necessarily that those same (largely non-elected) people with that authority will also be able to define the meaning of "terrorist" in the above context...

The problem would be those people being able to do all that without anyone being able to overrule them, and possibly without having to tell anyone (even Congress).

Quote:

I say that if they are going to try to ram this legislation down our throats, then the very least they could do would be to be honest about their goals

I would always prefer that the proponents of a bill be honest about their objectives... I'm too cynical to think it'll really ever happen, though

I'm also bothered by this business of them trying to keep the bill secret until a "favorable political climate"... I'm not surprised though. 'Tis a matter of time, in my view... though I lament it all the same. Might not be this time; however, so I'll have to wait and see...

DuncanK · February 8, 2003, 12:03

Quote:

Originally posted by uh Clem
Not that we'd ever see anything like that today...

Again, many people didn't think it could happen then. They basically trusted McCarthy to do want they wanted him to do. Perhaps some of them wanted him to hunt down Communists whether they were a threat to America or not, but Mcarthy went nuts on them. He started going after everyone.

The whole McCarthy thing was unamerican in the first place, even before they went after the Democrats. I actually think there is more justification for this law than justification for the Red Scare. Communists have never been a threat to America. The people who spied for the Soviet Union were doing it because they were truly unamerican, not communist.

My point is, the government can't be trusted with this crap, they will put some idiot in charge because no one else will want to do it, and like I said before it wont just be the terrorists who are the victims of this law.

Velociryx · February 8, 2003, 12:05

::nodding:: I agree. The whole "wait till the American people are looking the other way" approach is the most damning element of the whole thing, because that says in no uncertain terms that it wasn't an accident of fate that the proposed legislation arrived in a war-time climate, but rather, a carefully orchestrated event to slip something like this through, when our attentions were focused elsewhere.

This attempt at deliberate deception against our own citizens is.....evil.

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 8, 2003, 12:35

I've changed my mind. I'm against this war now. I wonder how many other people will change their mind.

Velociryx · February 8, 2003, 12:45

Oh, I'm not against the war....nothing about the situation there has changed, and it needs to be addressed, and addressed decisively.

What has changed for me, however, is that I have no confidence whatsoever in this administration's ability to properly execute the plan (and by "properly" I mean, "doing what is in the best interest of the Iraqi people, and staying committed to their own course of action till the end"). Further, every day we ARE at war, the safety of America itself is at grave risk, not by any threat from an external power, but from within. Our own leadership has demonstrated last evening that the cure is worse than the disease.

-=Vel=-