the Patriot Act

[TexasF355F1]

I'm sure yall heard of the Patriot Act. Which basically says any college students in the U.S. that have international students will be finger printed and misc. other things to try and keep a closer eye on them and harder for terrorists to gain "easy" access. The most controversial part is that they may track emails of these students. While I think the Patriot Act is a good idea, the email tracking is a step too far,IMO. It definately violates amendment rights I think.

[taranaki]

The Patriot Act is exactly the kind of nasty,invasive 'Big Brother' legislation that the constitution was intended to stop.A lot of countries[including New Zealand] have rushed through 'government has the right to spy on you' legislation in the wake of sept.11th.While it may be useful for checking up on the activities of a few suspicious-looking Arabs,the downside is that a dishonest government could use itfor all manner of other purposes without ever having to tell you about it.It's invasion of privacy on a grand scale and should not be permitted.

[Milliardo]

The Patriot Act is just the beginning. Hopefully it doesn't get worse, though I don't think Bush is about to let things go easy right now. He still has a "war" to finish...

[texan]

The Patriot Act is unconstitutional, plain and simple. You may not be bothered by it, but the fact remains that our constitution forbids laws like this from existing for a reason. Our ideals should not be compromised due to any outside threat, even for a short time (the act has a short shelf life, till 2006 if memory serves correctly).

[Ace$nyper]

I'm with you 100% Texan i'm not a terroist so y for "safety" treat me like one! Hey if everybody on earth was sane and a good person we wouldn't need laws but the world is far from it so we need laws to punish those who do wrong not the innocent! Hey if nobody does anything about this it will get worse and more stuff will contiue i'm not old enough to vote but I write to congressman/women and suport who i belive in. Voting only works if everyone takes part.
democory (spelling) is 2 wolfs and a sheep voting on whats for lunch
A Repulic (spelling) is a heavily armed sheep prostesting
Ben Franklin.

[igor@af]

The problem with this act lies deeper and farther than 2006 however... some of the clauses do not expire AT ALL..... I will dig up more info and come back on this.

[whttrshpunk]

Igor is right. I did a research paper and a speech on the patriot act. Some scary stuff in there. They can do ALOT just because you're a "suspected terrorist". No search warrants or court orders need apply.

[Milliardo]

It's really a step towards Martial Law. It would be bad for the U.S. if the Writ of Habeas Corpus, which embodies all, or almost all the rights, of citizens, was revoked. Then you guys there are virtually trapped and helpless against The State.

[1985_BMW318i]

It would be bad for the U.S. if the Writ of Habeas Corpus, which embodies all, or almost all the rights, of citizens, was revoked

For the first time ever Millardo I agree with you 100 percent on this. However while our government can pass certain laws they cannot keep them from being revoked. Right now there is a overwhelming feeling of euphoria because we successfully removed Saddam however there is now currently a underlying rumbling throughout the country because of certain restrictions the "typical" american is being subjected to. While I still currently support our President and his administration there are certain things I will never allow myself to be subjected to. Denial of my inalienable rights are at the top of the list. Now I also have a few more rights that many here in this country do not have. To sum it up I'll paste a few right here with a link to those wanting to learn a bit more of what it is to be a Texan.


The Texas Constitution
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 2 - INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT
All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient

The Texas Constitution
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 3a - EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW
Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin. This amendment is self-operative. (Added Nov. 7, 1972.)

The Texas Constitution
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 24 - MILITARY SUBORDINATE TO CIVIL AUTHORITY
The military shall at all times be subordinate to the civil authority

The Texas Constitution
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 28 - SUSPENSION OF LAWS
No power of suspending laws in this State shall be exercised except by the Legislature

and my personal favorite

The Texas Constitution
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 29 - PROVISIONS OF BILL OF RIGHTS EXCEPTED FROM POWERS OF GOVERNMENT; TO FOREVER REMAIN INVIOLATE
To guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this "Bill of Rights" is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void

All above from http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/txcon.../cn000100.html


Now I have not checked other states Bill of Rights and I'm certain some have similar wordings or at least I hope so. However there is one thing we have that no other state has written and that is the right to secede from the union. (However I think any state which chooses to secede could)

On the Annexation of Texas:

Texans are justly proud of living in a state that was once an independant republic and that entered the Union by treaty, not by act of Congress. Surprise! Texas did *not* enter the Union by treaty. Though at the time of its admission the two countries were negotiating a treaty of annexation, President John Tyler, as one of his last acts in office, offered statehood under the terms drawn up by the House of Representatives. As a result, Texas got a better deal than it would have under the treaty. For example, it became a state immediately, without having to pass through a probationary period as a mere territory.

The terms of the congressional bill included a requirement that Texas cede to the US all forts, barracks, navy yards, and other property pertaining to the public defense, but it also allowed Texas to keep its public lands, a generous condition rarely found in annexation treaties. However, in exchange for that concession, Texas also had to maintain responsibility for its own public debt.

So this gives us...

T. Texas was an independent country.
F. Texas joined the US by treaty (it was an act of Congress). T. Texas has the right to leave the Union. T. Texas has the right to split into as many as 5 states.

And by law we can fly our State Flag at the same height as the US flag

[Milliardo]

Actually, revocation of people's rights is easily done. All it takes is a pen and an announcement by the President. Again, as I have said before, this happened in our country before. Imagine the President ordering Congress closed down, all opposition members either under house arrest or else closely monitored, the press totally controlled by government. It takes nothing more than a direct order from the President for the military to move in and take over. With Congress closed, there is virtually no opposition to whatever the President wants. And the Judiciary? Since under Martial Law the President rules by decree, then opposition from that area is done away as well. The Supreme Court is then effectively under the control of the Executive branch, and Congress might be reopened--only it is a rubber stamp Congress, which comprises mostly of members who are amenable to whatever the President says. Before all these things, however, a series of events should first take place to justify Martial Law. This might come in the form or "outside threats", or even threats from within, both real and imagined. Once such "threats" are made known, the President will then slowly bring in measures that will "cure" or else mitigate these "threats". Before, I said it is not farfetched. I think many people here, now that the war has cooled down, realize that this act made by Bush will not go away, but then he will use other excuses to justify its stay. Worst case scenario is what I outlined above.

As an example (I am not sure if I already posted it), one of the reasons Marcos made Martial Law was because of the "threat" against his Defense Minister then, Juan Ponce Enrile. Only later, in 1986, did Enrile confess that the ambush made to him was staged, with Enrile himself firing an Uzi on his car to look like he was ambushed.

[texan]

You fail to note that 280 million Americans, most of which are well armed, might just disagree. There's no place in the world more inclined to political dissent than America, which is core to the success of our system. Easy is not a term in modern use when it comes to convincing Americans of anything.

[Milliardo]

Originally posted by texan
You fail to note that 280 million Americans, most of which are well armed, might just disagree. There's no place in the world more inclined to political dissent than America, which is core to the success of our system. Easy is not a term in modern use when it comes to convincing Americans of anything.

Unless you would risk another civil war in your land, I would think that it will not happen at once. Maybe when Americans realize that Martial Rule is only benefitting the few, and not everyone. But that will take awhile. A very long while, trust me. And as for convincing, nothing more would convince Americans than that their country is "threatened" and everything must be done to turn back the "threat". Nothing galvanizes--and make a nation agreeable to such acts--than a threat, whether real or imagined. Americans will agree to such things for as long as Bush can justify his position.

[texan]

Well I guess you're the expert on us

Why would "it take awhile"? You mean to tell me that it's not immediately apparent to someone that things are going the wrong direction when there's a group of armed soldiers at the end of your block asking to see your papers before you may leave the house, arresting anyone out after dusk, and building detention centers and command posts all over the country? It would take me and most other Americans about .002 seconds to realize something has gone terribly wrong, and start thinking of ways to fix it. Any group of people so used to civil liberties would be VERY much against any form of martial law, which is one reason it's never happened before.

And no I won't trust you, explain to me how our nation would go along with creating a military state because someone feeds real or imagined threats. We've been faced with larger threats than this, and nothing of the sort has ever occured before.

In short, you are like way too many people who think the populace is just a massive collection of people who can't think or act for themselves. NOTHING is further from the truth, as Americans are about the best educated and most politically active group of people on the planet. Furthermore, you talk about the government as though it's an entirely separate entity from the people, which is completely untrue. You talk of the Armed Forces like they are the willing sword this government can wield against the people, which is again completely untrue. If you tried to deploy the military here to erect a miltary state you'd have dissent and violence on a scale not seen since the Civil War, and the whole thing would most likely collapse under it's own weight almost immediately.

[YogsVR4]

I agree with Texan. While I know some would argue about how some countries have better education and more political discourse, the fact remains that the education level here is high and millions are involved in politics.

[Milliardo]

Originally posted by texan
Why would "it take awhile"? You mean to tell me that it's not immediately apparent to someone that things are going the wrong direction when there's a group of armed soldiers at the end of your block asking to see your papers before you may leave the house, arresting anyone out after dusk, and building detention centers and command posts all over the country?

Understand that Martial Rule, at least in the short run, would actually bring security for many people. Think about this: with the military in full control, you wouldn't worry about terrorists, criminals and the like. Criminals, in fact, would be very wary because of such draconian measures taken. But that can only last for so long, of course. The problem with this scene is that people will become complacent about Martial Rule and will be comfortable with it--hence it will actually take some time before many will realize that by compromising their liberties for security, they have become virtual prisoners of the state. You won't feel this in 1, 2 or so years. Martial Rule will bring you that much security, until you feel that you are in fact not free at all.

And no I won't trust you, explain to me how our nation would go along with creating a military state because someone feeds real or imagined threats. We've been faced with larger threats than this, and nothing of the sort has ever occured before.

Such threats have not become very real in a long while there. 9/11 brought the fact that America is, in fact, just as vulnerable as any other nation. The problem lies in how the government reacted to it. So now, threats both real and imagined, are being fed to Americans on an almost daily basis, in part by government, and in part by media. This would lead slowly into an acceptance that military rule would be preferable, as I have outlined above, because of a much tighter security it brings. People will readily exchange their liberties for security when a threat looms.

NOTHING is further from the truth, as Americans are about the best educated and most politically active group of people on the planet.

Singaporeans are also just as much educated, yet they have accepted Martial Law for years now. Their laws seem downright ridiculous at times, yet Singaporeans accept them. Another facet of a dictatorship, which would make it acceptable, would be economic stability. As long as the state can provide for the people, the populace don't care if they're free or not. A rioting populace ensues only when the state can no longer see the basic needs of the people. That has been Machiavelli's theme throughout The Prince.

Furthermore, you talk about the government as though it's an entirely separate entity from the people, which is completely untrue. You talk of the Armed Forces like they are the willing sword this government can wield against the people, which is again completely untrue.

Oftentimes, sadly enough, governments are not in touch with the people. And yes, the military is often also the willing sword that government can use against the people, if such a need arises. But Martial Rule will not show that facet of the military in its early stages. Again, see why that is so above.

If you tried to deploy the military here to erect a miltary state you'd have dissent and violence on a scale not seen since the Civil War, and the whole thing would most likely collapse under it's own weight almost immediately.

Actually you won't have dissent at once. Between war in its own soil and security, people will accept the latter rather than the former. The reason is logical: there is no security in war. And a society threatened, or told they are threatened, would welcome a force that will give them a much better security than open conflict. The conflict would only enter the picture much later, once Martial Rule is abused.