0
   

Liberals Obstructing in Favor of Terrorists - Patriot Act II

 
 
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2005 03:53 am
A recent article published in the journal well known for their liberal bias (LA Times), reports on the subject of the renewal of the Patriot Act. The article, admirably devoid of the Times' customary slant, shed light on a number of issues which liberals (embodied in Congress as the Democrats, and a couple of Republicans thrown in for good measure), take issue in regards to this law. Why is it that Democrats take such offense to a law designed and exercised as a means for law enforcement to combat terrorism and other criminal behavior, drugs, child molestation, murder, etc?

On one extreme it could be credibly argued that their obstruction of the renewal is in direct favor to terrorists, drug dealers, and child molesters, and though I don't think that counts in their convoluted (or simplistically naive, if you will), intentions, the outcome will be very much the same. The other extreme is that these are the defenders of the "free", and that together with organizations such as the ACLU and Islamic charities, they work, with the most altruistic intentions to safeguard our rights. Horse excrement!

Take a look at some of the provisions of the Patriot Act that they take such offense to: (All taken from the LA Times article, link provided.)

Quote:


They want a terrorism investigation be forced to comply with what, very likely, will be weeks of bereaucratic paper shuffling and court appearances, obviously tipping off the suspect to the investigation, and thereby rendering any surprise or intelligence obtained invalid. Their excuse ... I'm not sure, as it is inconceivable to me why someone would want to protect terror suspects. Any verbose Democrats care to explain?

Quote:


1% people. 1% of cases in drug, murder, and terrorism cases, ONLY! What possible objection can the whiners of Congress, and the rest of America, have against such an incredible law enforcement tool? This provision greatly assists in keeping the suspect in question in the dark. The law is simply dummy proof. If a terrorist, or murderer for that matter, doesn't know he's being investigated, he won't likely go on a evidence destruction binge, and may lead police to accomplices. Anyone who objects to this law, obviously has no notion of the value of intelligence in the war on terror, how that intelligence is obtained, or even in the case of murderers or child molesters. Admit it, if you object, chances are you are a person who's greatest brush with such creatures is through the blogosphere.

Quote:


Sometimes simple information (such as in a library database), like drivers licenses, addresses, etc, are a vital and annoying part of gathering intelligence. If the suspect has any connections to institutions like libraries, credit card companies, banks, etc, why shouldn't law enforcement be allowed to use those resources in the investigation. If you have nothing to fear, who cares if the police sees what you have been reading? And the Justice Department never used the code against libraries in the first place. Why make it harder for police, the FBI, or even another agency, to gather information on terrorists or murderers? What sensical arguement can you raise to that?

Simply put, if you're not breaking the law you have nothing to fear. If you are not a terrorist, murderer, or child molester, chances are the worst thing that could possibly happen is you may be investigated in error for a little while, but that is possible regardless of the law. Anyone who strongly objects to such a law is either merely a first class obstructionist, who probably raises objection to anything that has "force" in its nomenclature (law enforcement), or they are engaged in activities that they know would come to very bad light if it got out. Either way, they must get over it.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=716&e=26&u=/latimests/20050406/ts_latimes/patriotactiscalledvital

(edited to add link)
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 4,129 • Replies: 72
No top replies

 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2005 04:26 am
bookmark for later.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2005 04:36 am
me too
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2005 04:45 am
Quote:
If you are not a terrorist, murderer, or child molester, chances are the worst thing that could possibly happen is you may be investigated in error for a little while, but that is possible regardless of the law.


Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. You may be investigated in error for a little while. Yes. Really meaningless, unless you are the poor schlub who's house and home is being combed over and, just as likely, you're named in the papers with the dreaded 'person of interest' label. (Think Atlanta Olympic Plaza bombing.) But that's just bad luck, isn't it? Just like those more than a hundred slobs convicted of murder and later exonerated through DNA evidence were unlucky, for some of them 'a little while' turned into twenty years or more of prosecution and incarceration.

But everything changed, right? We now live in fear and loathing of the unknown and must surrender some, but only some, my brothers, of our so-called precious freedoms until we need to surrender some more. Right?

Actually what need to happen is for the FBI to do it's job. They don't need more investigative power, they need a computer system that actually allows different offices to talk to one another and compare notes. They don't have one, and they just scrapped the one they have been trying to get to work after spending millions. Luckily, they are not in business or they would be Chapter 11 by now.

They need a new attitude that doesn't include the present mindset of trying to reach retirement without actually getting screwed over by one of the other agents.

They need to talk to the new Intelligence Chief as soon as his office has finished decorating with the $500,000 worth of paintings and silk flowers he recently bought. (I'm inspired by that, aren't you?)

Someone recently said that four years after Pearl Harbor we were signing the papers for Japan's surrender, four years after September 11 we have what? Deep insertion into the American-based terrorist organization? Increased language ability by FBI agents? Radically new surveillance techniques? Computer software designed to follow underground money streams?

No, they want to check our library cards. (Hint: anyone can buy the books they need with cash at Barnes and Noble. ) Does anyone claim terrorist groups are so short on cash they have to use libraries??

But, you're right. Tell what you. Just take a copy of the US Constitution and scratch off the First, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. That should do it 'for a little while'.

Joe(Maybe we should have our heads tattooed.)Nation
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2005 04:50 am
You're evil, Joe (the user of too much logic and common sense) Nation.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2005 05:11 am
Quote:
No, they want to check our library cards. (Hint: anyone can buy the books they need with cash at Barnes and Noble. ) Does anyone claim terrorist groups are so short on cash they have to use libraries??


Laughing

I love that store, it is almost worth driving for two and half hours to get to it.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2005 07:43 am
Love the thread title.

Alternately: Liberals support civil rights and freedoms; NeoCons attempt to peer into private lives.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2005 07:50 am
Let me ask this,is it possible to be pro civil rights and freedoms AND pro security and safety?
Or does one negate the other?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2005 07:51 am
When you increase freedom, you automatically decrease security.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2005 07:51 am
And vice versa.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2005 07:54 am
Thats fine Drew,but you didnt answer my question.
If I am pro freedom,does that mean that I have to be anti safety,or vice versa?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2005 09:54 am
No. Freedom and safety can go hand in hand; it just has to be done intelligently.

The purpose of the PATRIOT (god, what a terrible name) act wasn't to protect us from regular criminals. It shouldn't have had anything to do with that at all. It is about, supposedly, stopping domestic terrorism.

The truth is, it is used in a huge number of cases that have nothing to do with terrorism. THis is an illegal and unwarranted bypassing of the constitution in order to remove rights from American citizens.

It has been proven that our gov't has done little to nothing to actually secure our borders or critical facilities; that being the case, it is plain to see that the purpose of the PATRIOT act is not to stop terrorists, but to stop Americans from enjoying their right to privacy.

Lusatian, I'm sure that you are aware that the PATRIOT act was written, for the most part, Pre-9/11?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2005 11:04 am
I'm speaking more in general terms than specifically about the PATRIOT act.

Generally, the more security you require, the less freedom you will have.

You want job security? OK. Pick your job carefully, do not change jobs, suck up to your boss.

You want the freedom to work when you want to work? OK. Start your own business... but it might fail.

You want to be protected against criminals? OK. We need IDs, police patrols. Maybe random stops. Maybe the police are free to search whomever they wish. Maybe you are required to cooperate with the police no matter what the request. All of this reduces freedom.

You want to protect your house? Alarm, locks, video monitoring perhaps. All make it less easy for you to move around the house, allows your spouse to watch your behavior, etc.

You want free access to your firearms? OK. But that makes your kid a helluva lot less safe.

You want to protect your kid? Lock up those guns; you can't get at 'em any time you want.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2005 11:46 am
Here's where our society has ended up:

Quote:
maryland news
A tale of customer service, justice and currency as funny as a $2 bill


Michael Olesker

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PUT YOURSELF in Mike Bolesta's place. On the morning of Feb. 20, he buys a new radio-CD player for his 17-year-old son Christopher's car. He pays the $114 installation charge with 57 crisp new $2 bills, which, when last observed, were still considered legitimate currency in the United States proper. The $2 bills are Bolesta's idea of payment, and his little comic protest, too.

For this, Bolesta, Baltimore County resident, innocent citizen, owner of Capital City Student Tours, finds himself under arrest.

Finds himself, in front of a store full of customers at the Best Buy on York Road in Lutherville, locked into handcuffs and leg irons.

Finds himself transported to the Baltimore County lockup in Cockeysville, where he's handcuffed to a pole for three hours while the U.S. Secret Service is called into the case.

Have a nice day, Mike.

"Humiliating," the 57-year old Bolesta was saying now. "I am 6 feet 5 inches tall, and I felt like 8 inches high. To be handcuffed, to have all those people looking on, to be cuffed to a pole -- and to know you haven't done anything wrong. And me, with a brother, Joe, who spent 33 years on the city police force. It was humiliating."

What we have here, besides humiliation, is a sense of caution resulting in screw-ups all around.

"When I bought the stereo player," Bolesta explains, "the technician said it'd fit perfectly into my son's dashboard. But it didn't. So they called back and said they had another model that would fit perfectly, and it was cheaper. We got a $67 refund, which was fine. As long as it fit, that's all.

"So we go back and pay for it, and they tell us to go around front with our receipt and pick up the difference in the cost. I ask about installation charges. They said, 'No installation charge, because of the mix-up. Our mistake, no charge.' Swell.

"But then, the next day, I get a call at home. They're telling me, 'If you don't come in and pay the installation fee, we're calling the police.' Jeez, where did we go from them admitting a mistake to suddenly calling the police? So I say, 'Fine, I'll be in tomorrow.' But, overnight, I'm starting to steam a little. It's not the money -- it's the threat. So I thought, I'll count out a few $2 bills."

He has lots and lots of them.

With his Capital City Student Tours, he arranges class trips for school kids around the country traveling to large East Coast cities, including Baltimore. He's been doing this for the last 18 years. He makes all the arrangements: hotels, meals, entertainment. And it's part of his schtick that, when Bolesta hands out meal money to students, he does it in $2 bills, which he picks up from his regular bank, Sun Trust.

"The kids don't see that many $2 bills, so they think this is the greatest thing in the world," Bolesta says. "They don't want to spend 'em. They want to save 'em. I've been doing this since I started the company. So I'm thinking, 'I'll stage my little comic protest. I'll pay the $114 with $2 bills.'"

At Best Buy, they may have perceived the protest -- but did not sense the comic aspect of 57 $2 bills.

"I'm just here to pay the bill," Bolesta says he told a cashier. "She looked at the $2 bills and told me, 'I don't have to take these if I don't want to.' I said, 'If you don't, I'm leaving. I've tried to pay my bill twice. You don't want these bills, you can sue me.' So she took the money. Like she's doing me a favor."

He remembers the cashier marking each bill with a pen. Then other store personnel began to gather, a few of them asking, "Are these real?"

"Of course they are," Bolesta said. "They're legal tender."

A Best Buy manager refused comment last week. But, according to a Baltimore County police arrest report, suspicions were roused when an employee noticed some smearing of ink. So the cops were called in. One officer noticed the bills ran in sequential order.

"I told them, 'I'm a tour operator. I've got thousands of these bills. I get them from my bank. You got a problem, call the bank,'" Bolesta says. "I'm sitting there in a chair. The store's full of people watching this. All of a sudden, he's standing me up and handcuffing me behind my back, telling me, 'We have to do this until we get it straightened out.'

"Meanwhile, everybody's looking at me. I've lived here 18 years. I'm hoping my kids don't walk in and see this. And I'm saying, 'I can't believe you're doing this. I'm paying with legal American money.'"

Bolesta was then taken to the county police lockup in Cockeysville, where he sat handcuffed to a pole and in leg irons while the Secret Service was called in.

"At this point," he says, "I'm a mass murderer."

Finally, Secret Service agent Leigh Turner arrived, examined the bills and said they were legitimate, adding, according to the police report, "Sometimes ink on money can smear."

This will be important news to all concerned.

For Baltimore County police, said spokesman Bill Toohey, "It's a sign that we're all a little nervous in the post-9/11 world."

The other day, one of Bolesta's sons needed a few bucks. Bolesta pulled out his wallet and "whipped out a couple of $2 bills. But my son turned away. He said he doesn't want 'em any more."

He's seen where such money can lead.


This is exactly what those who are in charge want; for Americans to be edgy, jumpy, afraid.

What ever happened to 'All we have to fear is fear itself?' That has completely gone out of our lexicon. Today, it's 'fearFEARFEARfearfearfearFEARfearfear.' It has more to do with the Axis plan for keeping people in control than the Allied plan, I'll tell ya that...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2005 12:18 pm
This is so horrible, a man tied to a pole for three hours, that it has got to be a joke.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2005 01:19 pm
Also re: freedom versus security.

I'm not saying that they are mutually exclusive. I'm saying that everyone must find the place on the spectrum where they feel most comfortable. Some are willing to sacrifice freedom for security. Some are willing to sacrifice security for freedom.

Everyone must make their individual choice as to how much freedom and how much security they want.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2005 08:27 pm
I would rather be free than have any kind of unreasonable restrictions. In other words, I see nothing wrong with walking through medal detectors and handing my purse over to be searched. But if the government is secretly tracking me in any kind of way, I find that to be intolerable and it is not something I am willing to condone.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2005 08:41 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Also re: freedom versus security.

I'm not saying that they are mutually exclusive. I'm saying that everyone must find the place on the spectrum where they feel most comfortable. Some are willing to sacrifice freedom for security. Some are willing to sacrifice security for freedom.

Everyone must make their individual choice as to how much freedom and how much security they want.


Fair point DrewDad but in society the individual doesn't get to make an individual choice, they have to go along with the majority. Now where the majority are frightened (and not without good cause I might add) they will be willing to trade much freedom for at least the illusion of security. For those who, for whatever reason, want to control society tightly, this is a godsend.

Those who are of stronger mettle and who want to keep their freedoms and not surrender them for this illusion of security - tough, there's no way they can get away from it. They are under the same regime.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2005 09:32 pm
goodfielder wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Also re: freedom versus security.

I'm not saying that they are mutually exclusive. I'm saying that everyone must find the place on the spectrum where they feel most comfortable. Some are willing to sacrifice freedom for security. Some are willing to sacrifice security for freedom.

Everyone must make their individual choice as to how much freedom and how much security they want.


Fair point DrewDad but in society the individual doesn't get to make an individual choice, they have to go along with the majority. Now where the majority are frightened (and not without good cause I might add) they will be willing to trade much freedom for at least the illusion of security. For those who, for whatever reason, want to control society tightly, this is a godsend.

Those who are of stronger mettle and who want to keep their freedoms and not surrender them for this illusion of security - tough, there's no way they can get away from it. They are under the same regime.

Not so. There are always choices that one can make. Think of the New Hampshire state motto, for example. Cool

I definitely agree with regarding the illusion of security. Frankly, there are some appalling stories of lax security. Furthermore, the kinds of changes that would make airline travelers the most safe (such as making sure that travelers are always on the same flight as their bags) have been rejected by the airlines as "too expensive to implement." Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Lusatian
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 01:40 am
Joe, you entire post bursts at the seams with half formulated arguements, obtuse points, and of course, a healthy dose of whining. Allow me to demonstrate:

Joe Nation wrote:
Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. You may be investigated in error for a little while. Yes. Really meaningless, unless you are the poor schlub who's house and home is being combed over and, just as likely, you're named in the papers with the dreaded 'person of interest' label. (Think Atlanta Olympic Plaza bombing.) But that's just bad luck, isn't it? Just like those more than a hundred slobs convicted of murder and later exonerated through DNA evidence were unlucky, for some of them 'a little while' turned into twenty years or more of prosecution and incarceration.


Joe Nations reciped for a shoddy reply: Begin argument with whining. (Getting searched is just terrible, terrible I say, how could anyone recover. It's not like they were on a train in Madrid or an office in Manhattan now is it.) Add over decade old case. (Atlanta is an obvious example how we must cull those sadistic oppressors, the FBI. No thoughts, Joe, that maybe, just maybe the FBI was trying to do their job?) Complete with irrelevant tangent to case in point. (So what are you saying, that we should stop convicting murderers all together because some were found innocent? And what, exactly, does that have to do with the Patriot Act? Why don't we just disband all law enforcement agencies and arms altogether? Wouldn't that make you happy.)

Joe Nation wrote:
Actually what need to happen is for the FBI to do it's job. They don't need more investigative power, they need a computer system that actually allows different offices to talk to one another and compare notes. They don't have one, and they just scrapped the one they have been trying to get to work after spending millions. Luckily, they are not in business or they would be Chapter 11 by now.


Out of curiosity, how do you know what would improve the FBI's ability to apprehend suspects or terrorists? Are you an investigative agent? Are you on a panel in the Justice Department privy to data on arrests, warrants, convictions, cases? Have you ever been part of any investigation, or intelligence gathering effort in your life? I'm just wondering, because I'm curious how you can claim to have come upon these things that "need to happen" within the FBI? Are you a subject matter expert? You know you are blithely claiming that a computer system will improve serial killer hunts, child rape cases, terrorism investigations, drug seizures, and on and on the list goes ... Please enlighten, where is this "eureka" intellect coming from? Or could it be that the closest you get to "inside" information on the workings of an investigation is a nightly episode of CSI?

Joe Nation wrote:
Someone recently said that four years after Pearl Harbor we were signing the papers for Japan's surrender, four years after September 11 we have what? Deep insertion into the American-based terrorist organization? Increased language ability by FBI agents? Radically new surveillance techniques? Computer software designed to follow underground money streams?


Are you seriously comparing WWII/1940, to 9/11/2001? If you are, yes I can see the similarities now ... when the Japanese struck Pearl Harbor it was soon found that two thirds of the pilots were of Saudi origin, had lived and studied flying in the United States, and were funded by Shinto charities whose main donors were Americans. And, by the way, Joe, all you "failsafe" improvements you regurgitated off of CNN, are being pursued. But, since this is the real world and not the set of Law and Order SVU, some things take time, money, and actual experts who happen to know what they're talking about. (What the FBI needs is one of those molecular deconstructors ... I saw it on Star Trek, man.)

Joe Nation wrote:
No, they want to check our library cards. (Hint: anyone can buy the books they need with cash at Barnes and Noble. ) Does anyone claim terrorist groups are so short on cash they have to use libraries??


Now you're also a subject matter expert on the behavioral patterns of terrorists? Have you ever heard of an anonymous internet connection, Joe? Like the ones they have at ... oh, hey what do you know, libraries? Are you so mentally inept that you actually believe the simplistic, Forrest Gumpian remedies and arguements you propose with such sweeping authority?

Perhaps you should stick to what you know, stay out of what you don't (or find some real information on the subject). If you prefer otherwise, then you better hurry as CSI is on tonight.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Liberals Obstructing in Favor of Terrorists - Patriot Act II
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 02:02:53