Ashcroft wants Patriot Act widened

[Pick]

Originally posted by YogsVR4


Which part? The one that says he wants to expand the act? Then yes, its clear he does.

Do I agree that the US is turning into a police state? That will only happen when the government comes and takes the guns away.

Do I agree that my rights have been eroded? When the AFLCIO is declared illegal I’ll believe that. The tax system here erodes more the Patriot Act ever could.

Do I agree in expanding the death penalty? Yes!

Do I agree that Milardo's assessments have no merit? Considering his track record of being wrong every assessment he’s made then, yes, I agree to that too.

Do I agree that the government bears watching and dissent is welcome? Then I agree to that too.

Do I agree that some of you guys are "Chicken Littles"? Then I agree to that too.


What I don’t agree with is comparing Ashcroft to McCarthy. I would also remind people that standing in front of congress spouting your views does not mean that something will become laws. I will also remind you that Chicken Little’s crying about the sky falling is getting quite tiresome.

OH NO HE DIDN'T!!!!!!!

[igor@af]

Yogs,

do you know the definition outlined for a "terrorist" in the USA Patriot Act?

Let me enlighten you -

"any person who commits an act which endangers human life and is a violation of State or Federal law"

I know you are a very smart person so I will not go into explaining what this means, as you can surely figure out for yourself.

This isn't fighting terrorism. This is bullshit. Ashcroft has setup a nice base for himself, where he can name anyone a "terrorist."
Now, he is trying to expand some provisions to give him more power to fight these 'terrorists,' but since the definition for a 'terrorist' is so broad, he can fight not only terrorists but jaywalkers and those who use cell phones while driving in NYC.

Why would the definition have to be so broad?

[freakray]

Originally posted by igor@af

Why would the definition have to be so broad?

The only thing that comes to mind is so that he can do whatever he wants and yet never actually be acting 'outside the law'

Just my penny's worth......

[Pick]

Originally posted by igor@af
Yogs,


"any person who commits an act which endangers human life and is a violation of State or Federal law"

I'd like to see the full explanation of this........... Please show me where you got that.

[Pick]

Originally posted by freakray




Just my penny's worth......

Keep the change.

He is not acting illegally and you guys are making it sound a lot worse than it really is and even fabricating what really is happening. Do you think, of all groups, conservatives would push for privacy-invasion ans the taking-away of the rights of the people? If you do, you are just plain ignorant, and can't see through your foggy brain to what this act is really doing.

[igor@af]

Originally posted by Pick


I'd like to see the full explanation of this........... Please show me where you got that.

You must think you're so smart....

I got it from the USA patriot act text - http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

[freakray]

Originally posted by Pick


Keep the change.

He is not acting illegally and you guys are making it sound a lot worse than it really is and even fabricating what really is happening. Do you think, of all groups, conservatives would push for privacy-invasion ans the taking-away of the rights of the people? If you do, you are just plain ignorant, and can't see through your foggy brain to what this act is really doing.

The only ignorant person I see around these parts is you I am afraid.

You couldn't look up the Patriot Act yourself to try to disprove Igor, instead you had to make him prove to you that it is in there.

As a somebody who moved to America after living to 2 countries previously I see politics in a VERY different light to you.
You're sole exposure to politics is living in America whereas I have lived in Europe and Africa, I have seen more policies and actions affecting my life than you have, yet you call me ignorant when I question the motive of the goverment when they want to bring in a new law?

I think the problem is people like yourself you can't see through your foggy brain. You have been brought up to never question what the people in power are doing and what their motive is and so when other people do, you consider them ignorant?
Pah.....you are sad....stop being a sheep and think of the bigger picture, think of how it will affect YOU!
I can tell you I do, being a foreign national, albeit with American Citizenship, I am still wary of any law that may make my life subject to unscrupulous prying on the basis of I have lived in other countries.

[Pick]

Originally posted by igor@af


You must think you're so smart....

I got it from the USA patriot act text - http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

You apparently are not intelligent enough to read down one line below it for the explanation........

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; and.........
`(B) appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

[Pick]

Originally posted by freakray


The only ignorant person I see around these parts is you I am afraid.

You couldn't look up the Patriot Act yourself to try to disprove Igor, instead you had to make him prove to you that it is in there.

As a somebody who moved to America after living to 2 countries previously I see politics in a VERY different light to you.
You're sole exposure to politics is living in America whereas I have lived in Europe and Africa, I have seen more policies and actions affecting my life than you have, yet you call me ignorant when I question the motive of the goverment when they want to bring in a new law?

I think the problem is people like yourself you can't see through your foggy brain. You have been brought up to never question what the people in power are doing and what their motive is and so when other people do, you consider them ignorant?
Pah.....you are sad....stop being a sheep and think of the bigger picture, think of how it will affect YOU!
I can tell you I do, being a foreign national, albeit with American Citizenship, I am still wary of any law that may make my life subject to unscrupulous prying on the basis of I have lived in other countries.

My post was not directed at you, but if the glove fits wear it, O.J. I was directing it at whoever believed what I said.

Not only did Igor look up the act for me, but he discredited himself. All I was asking is if he could direct me to where I could see the Patriot Act and its contents.

As for me following whoever's in power, that is simply NOT TRUE. So since I agree with Bush, I am just one of his puppets and I can't look past believing everything he says to what really matters? NO!! THis is the first time in eight years we, as a country, have been able to trust what is coming out of the White House. Jeez, this pisses me off!!!!! I am a dirty puppet who can't think for himself because I follow what my president that I elected believes ???!!!!!

I haven't agreed with everything Bush has done. He shouldn't have gone to the U.N., he should have attacked Iraq earlier, the AIDS bill is WAY too big and most of the money will never reach the people that need it, he should have vetoed Campaign Finance Reform, and there are some others. But for the most part, I agree with him. He has very similar political views to me. BUT I AM STILL A PUPPET???????

And your EXPOSURE to other countries politics has only dulled your ideals on American politics. I was born in the US and I'm damn proud of it. I've been out of the country before and personally,nothing compares to the freedoms and life I have in the US.

[igor@af]

Originally posted by Pick


You apparently are not intelligent enough to read down one line below it for the explanation........

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; and.........
`(B) appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

I knew this was coming, and you better stop insulting me.
And yea, I can say this because I do run this board, insult me again and I will ban you. I never insulted you and nor did I do anything that can be justified of an insult.

Trying to prove that someone "appeared to intend to" is a piece of cake. So, the (B) provision is pointless and does not protect you or me. And so is (C).

[Pick]

Originally posted by igor@af


I knew this was coming, and you better stop insulting me.
And yea, I can say this because I do run this board, insult me again and I will ban you. I never insulted you and nor did I do anything that can be justified of an insult.

Trying to prove that someone "appeared to intend to" is a piece of cake. So, the (B) provision is pointless and does not protect you or me. And so is (C).

You did insult me. I'm not going to apologize, but I will just lay off you. What kind of message does it send out to others if you ban me because I STRONGLY disagree with you????? I'm done posting crap that can be seen as insults, but I'm still going to prove you guys wrong.

:o :o

[freakray]

Originally posted by Pick


My post was not directed at you, but if the glove fits wear it, O.J. I was directing it at whoever believed what I said.

Not only did Igor look up the act for me, but he discredited himself. All I was asking is if he could direct me to where I could see the Patriot Act and its contents.

As for me following whoever's in power, that is simply NOT TRUE. So since I agree with Bush, I am just one of his puppets and I can't look past believing everything he says to what really matters? NO!! THis is the first time in eight years we, as a country, have been able to trust what is coming out of the White House. Jeez, this pisses me off!!!!! I am a dirty puppet who can't think for himself because I follow what my president that I elected believes ???!!!!!

I haven't agreed with everything Bush has done. He shouldn't have gone to the U.N., he should have attacked Iraq earlier, the AIDS bill is WAY too big and most of the money will never reach the people that need it, he should have vetoed Campaign Finance Reform, and there are some others. But for the most part, I agree with him. He has very similar political views to me. BUT I AM STILL A PUPPET???????

And your EXPOSURE to other countries politics has only dulled your ideals on American politics. I was born in the US and I'm damn proud of it. I've been out of the country before and personally,nothing compares to the freedoms and life I have in the US.

Let me get this right, your post was posted in response to my post, yet it was not directed at me?
Mr Clinton I pressume?

Have you ever considered this, if Bush had not gone to the UN, he would be in the same position as Iraq was when it invaded Kuwait - remember the Gulf War?
He at least signalled his intent.
It's not like he blatantly attacked another country without warning, I will at least give him that much.

My ideals on American politics? You know nothing of them buddy.
One thing I do like about politics in America is the transparency with which the Govt. operates, it's a lot better than wondering what they're up to like you have to do in countries like South Africa.
There is nothing wrong with being proud of being American, I only wish more Americans would think on a global scale.
Exposure to other countries politics has made me appreciate the system here, but I can still not agree with the way it is run here.

[Pick]

Originally posted by freakray


Let me get this right, your post was posted in response to my post, yet it was not directed at me?
Mr Clinton I pressume?

Have you ever considered this, if Bush had not gone to the UN, he would be in the same position as Iraq was when it invaded Kuwait - remember the Gulf War?
He at least signalled his intent.
It's not like he blatantly attacked another country without warning, I will at least give him that much.

My ideals on American politics? You know nothing of them buddy.
One thing I do like about politics in America is the transparency with which the Govt. operates, it's a lot better than wondering what they're up to like you have to do in countries like South Africa.
There is nothing wrong with being proud of being American, I only wish more Americans would think on a global scale.
Exposure to other countries politics has made me appreciate the system here, but I can still not agree with the way it is run here.

My post was only quoting what you said. Like i said, if the glove fits wear it.
My ideas only global politics are still 'in the making', so cut me some slack.

[gigatron]

Because of my 'non-pro-american gov' views I am sure I will get more bashing from my intelligent friends yog and pic But I really don't care because inside they know who's more ignorant I honestly find it hard that you would in the slightest even hint at protecting a government that is in no way interested in 'protecting' its citizens (well the rich.... and corporations maybe).. I don't know the exact number of people but it's in the thousands.. that have been detained and held for no reason just because they were arab. There has already been tv documentaries about these people and how they were unjustly held and even abused just because they were arab, muslim or of middle-eastern descent. These 'patriot' acts are very much so what Hitler did in his 'wonderful' chancellor position. It's ironic how the US even supported hitler before he went 'tradical'.. These patriot acts (1 and 2) and whatever may follow are a step in the wrong direction.. you know if the US didn't screw around with the rest of the world it wouldn't have to worry about its security. People are not jealous of the US some still believe that but anyways. I am just curious at what will happen once the first and second patriot acts get strongly ratified and how much further this will progress. I doubt many have even read what's proposed or already initated from these patriot acts. Quite simply 'they are 'unconstitutional' :/

[YogsVR4]

Originally posted by igor@af
Yogs,

do you know the definition outlined for a "terrorist" in the USA Patriot Act?

Let me enlighten you -

"any person who commits an act which endangers human life and is a violation of State or Federal law"

I know you are a very smart person so I will not go into explaining what this means, as you can surely figure out for yourself.

This isn't fighting terrorism. This is bullshit. Ashcroft has setup a nice base for himself, where he can name anyone a "terrorist."
Now, he is trying to expand some provisions to give him more power to fight these 'terrorists,' but since the definition for a 'terrorist' is so broad, he can fight not only terrorists but jaywalkers and those who use cell phones while driving in NYC.

Why would the definition have to be so broad?

Stop for a minute. The main purpose of the patriot act is to get a handle on immigration. Thy byproduct would be in fighting terrorism although the word terrorism is what gets everyones panties in a bunch so thats the part everyone focuses on. Its the immigration thats that key issue.

At this point everyone should take a breath. I don't like the Patriot Act in the same way I don't like Campaign Finance Reform. Its unworkable in the way its written. They were both done to address a real problem (PA for the runaway immigration violations going on and 911. CFR to try and limit the effect of money on an election). They both have to go and they should try again.

Now that I've restated that....

You have completely misrepresented how Ashcroft (or anyone else) can name someone a terrorist. The arguement you used is a slippery slope one and has no merit on that alone. The fact is he is the top law enforcement official in the country. He's a cop. Cops want lots of rules and regulations and things to back them up. Its up to the the congress to make those rules. They are the ones you should be on if you don't like where something is going.

Have them repeal the laws you don't like. Its not as though thats never happened before (although it is one of the tougher ones outside the courts). Or wait for the law to be struck down if its unconstitutional like is happening with CFR.

The Chicken Little reaction of saying the US is on the road to a police state is just short of histerical.