This has got to stop.

[RACINTWEEK]

From The San Antonio Current:

On December 13, when U.S. forces captured Saddam Hussein, President George W. Bush not only celebrated with his national security team, but also pulled out his pen and signed into law a bill that grants the FBI sweeping new powers. A White House spokesperson explained the curious timing of the signing - on a Saturday - as "the President signs bills seven days a week." But the last time Bush signed a bill into law on a Saturday happened more than a year ago - on a spending bill that the President needed to sign, to prevent shuttng down the federal government the following Monday.

By signing the bill on the day of Hussein's capture, Bush effectively consigned a dramatic expansion of the USA Patriot Act to a mere footnote. Consequently, while most Americans watched as Hussein was probed for head lice, few were aware that the FBI had just obtained the power to probe their financial records, even if the feds don't suspect their involvement in crime or terrorism.

The Bush Administration and its Congressional allies tucked away these new executive powers in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, a legislative behemoth that funds all the intelligence activities of the federal government. The Act included a simple, yet insidious, redefinition of "financial institution," which previously referred to banks, but now includes stockbrokers, car dealerships, casinos, credit card companies, insurance agencies, jewelers, airlines, the U.S. Post Office, and any other business "whose cash transactions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory matters."

Congress passed the legislation around Thanksgiving. Except for U.S. Representative Charlie Gonzalez, all San Antonio's House members voted for the act. The Senate passed it with a voice vote to avoid individual accountability. While broadening the definition of "financial institution," the Bush administration is ramping up provisions within the 2001 USA Patriot Act, which granted the FBI the authority to obtain client records from banks by merely requesting the records in a "National Security Letter." To get the records, the FBI doesn't have to appear before a judge, nor demonstrate "probable cause" - reason to believe that the targeted client is involved in criminal or terrorist activity. Moreover, the National Security Letters are attached with a gag order, preventing any financial institution from informing its clients that their records have been surrendered to the FBI. If a financial institution breaches the gag order, it faces criminal penalties. And finally, the FBI will no longer be required to report to Congress how often they have used the National Security Letters.

Supporters of expanding the Patriot Act claim that the new law is necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks on the U.S. The FBI needs these new powers to be "expeditious and efficient" in its response to these new threats. Robert Summers, professor of international law and director of the new Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University, explains, "We don't go to war with the terrorists as we went to war with the Germans or the North Vietnamese. If we apply old methods of following the money, we will not be successful. We need to meet them on an even playing field to avoid another disaster."

Opponents of the PATRIOT Act and its expansion claim that safeguards like judicial oversight and the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, are essential to prevent abuses of power. "There's a reason these protections were put into place," says Chip Berlet, senior analyst at Political Research Associates, and a historian of U.S. political repression. "It has been shown that if you give [these agencies] this power they will abuse it. For any investigative agency, once you tell them that they must make sure that they protect the country from subversives, it inevitably gets translated into a program to silence dissent."

Opponents claim the FBI already has all the tools to stop crime and terrorism. Moreover, explains Patrick Filyk, an attorney and vice president of the local chapter of the ACLU, "The only thing the act accomplishes is the removal of judicial oversight and the transfer of more power to law enforcements agents."

This broadening of the Patriot Act represents a political victory for the Bush Administration's stealth legislative strategy to increase executive power. Last February, shortly before Bush launched the war on Iraq, the Center for Public Integrity obtained a draft of a comprehensive expansion of the Patriot Act, nicknamed Patriot Act II, written by Attorney General John Ashcroft's staff. Again, the timing was suspicious; it appeared that the Bush Administration was waiting for the start of the Iraq war to introduce Patriot Act II, and then exploit the crisis to ram it through Congress with little public debate.

The leak and ensuing public backlash frustrated the Bush administration's strategy, so Ashcroft and Co. disassembled Patriot Act II, then reassembled its parts into other legislation. By attaching the redefinition of "financial institution" to an Intelligence Authorization Act, the Bush Administration and its Congressional allies avoided public hearings and floor debates for the expansion of the Patriot Act.

Even proponents of this expansion have expressed concern about these legislative tactics. "It's a problem that some of these riders that are added on may not receive the scrutiny that we would like to see," says St. Mary's Professor Robert Summers.

The Bush Administration has yet to answer pivotal questions about its latest constitutional coup: If these new executive powers are necessary to protect United States citizens, then why would the legislation not withstand the test of public debate? If the new act's provisions are in the public interest, why use stealth in ramming them through the legislative process?

:lame:

Read. Learn. Think. Vote.

[empath]

Remember this bullshit when the knives come out for Dean later.

Remember who the enemy is.

[zartan]

why can't you guys just be happy you don't live in Burma? you've got it so good - why do you hate america?

[RACINTWEEK]

it doesnt matter where u live i
privacy is privacy especially if its protected
under federal laws the country was based on

:amanda:

[RACINTWEEK]

any one who is inopposition to this new
"Patriot act" thing please pass this on this will affect us for a long time if something isnt done

[Light Touch]

Originally posted by RACINTWEEK
it doesnt matter where u live i
privacy is privacy especially if its protected
under federal laws the country was based on

:amanda:

While I agree with your sentiment, there are no federal "blanket" privacy laws, to my knowledge.

[RACINTWEEK]

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Looks like my privacy is protected by the 4th amendment to the Constitution.

[Light Touch]

Not exactly -- you are subject to reasonable searches and seizures. Privacy denotes a complete bar to exploration by the authorities.

Privacy exists for things like psychological records and lawyer consultations, but few things beyond that. (There is limited health information protection out there, and even more limited financial information protection.)

[zartan]

hey racintweek - orange text means sarcasm; i am kidding, someone made that stupid sort of comment to one of my posts - i.e. 'hey stop bitching about bush, it could be worse, you could live in cambodia' as if that somehow makes everything this administration does 'ok'.

[KittyBleu]

Yeah...if you think your privacy is protected...think again. :sadblue: Seems like the only safe place is Alaska....too bad it's so cold..But their landmark case Ravin vs. Alaska states that a persons home is protected...so what you do, you do..no one wants to know about it.

..I'm surpised Alaska is still a part of America..oh..wait....they have oil..THAT'S WHY.

[BizarroCub]

Originally posted by Light Touch

Privacy exists for things like psychological records and lawyer consultations, but few things beyond that. (There is limited health information protection out there, and even more limited financial information protection.)

Actually...patriot act got rid of this too.

-Grizz

[zartan]

health information protection actually was just increased with passage of HIPAA which was fully implemented this fall. of course, this increase in privacy doesn't apply if john ashcroft thinks maybe you are subversive.

its amazing how little we learned from mccarthyism, isn't it? and here we have asshats like ann coulter trying to say mccarthy was "misunderstood".

[Light Touch]

Originally posted by zartan74
health information protection actually was just increased with passage of HIPAA which was fully implemented this fall. of course, this increase in privacy doesn't apply if john ashcroft thinks maybe you are subversive.

its amazing how little we learned from mccarthyism, isn't it? and here we have asshats like ann coulter trying to say mccarthy was "misunderstood".

Actually, it's kinda funny, in some ways, HIPAA reduced privacy -- many companies (including one I worked for) had more strict privacy standards, but when HIPAA went into effect, they followed the letter of the law. Sometimes the threat of tort action is more of a deterrent than legislation. (A point I've argued repeatedly on here.)

[zartan]

HIPAA increased privacy big time in hospitals. Which i think is good. its top-of-mind for everyone in most hospitals and i think this is a very good thing - they no longer leave your charts out in public, write patient names on the walls where they can be seen, discuss your diagnosis in the waiting room, etc.

[Innuendo]

Originally posted by zartan74
hey racintweek - orange text means sarcasm; i am kidding, someone made that stupid sort of comment to one of my posts - i.e. 'hey stop bitching about bush, it could be worse, you could live in cambodia' as if that somehow makes everything this administration does 'ok'.

Your nothing but a spoiled little child who has been sheltered his whole life. Step out of your little shell and go see the real world. My comments are directed not to those who bash bush, but those who love to cry how this country represses them. Zartan, you have no idea what the true meaning of repression is. Make fun all you want about my earlier post. It's easy to do so behind a keyboard. :redfu:

[velvetgoldmire]

Originally posted by Innuendo


Your nothing but a spoiled little child who has been sheltered his whole life. Step out of your little shell and go see the real world. My comments are directed not to those who bash bush, but those who love to cry how this country represses them. Zartan, you have no idea what the true meaning of repression is. Make fun all you want about my earlier post. It's easy to do so behind a keyboard. :redfu:
Dude, I don't think he was making fun of your post. Orange text = sarcasm = he was agreeing with you. Simmah down naw.

[zartan]

no i was agreeing with racintweek, not innuendo.

hey innuendo do you know anything about my background? what i do for a living? where i have travelled and lived? thats what i thought. so why don't you shove your assumptions up your ass, huh? for someone who's supposedly lived through repression and is happy to have escaped it you're sure eager to defend repressive tactics.

[empath]

Originally posted by Innuendo


Your nothing but a spoiled little child who has been sheltered his whole life. Step out of your little shell and go see the real world. My comments are directed not to those who bash bush, but those who love to cry how this country represses them. Zartan, you have no idea what the true meaning of repression is. Make fun all you want about my earlier post. It's easy to do so behind a keyboard. :redfu:

So if I punched you in the mouth, you couldn't complain because people in other places are getting shot at?

[zartan]

YAY! nice one john.

[velvetgoldmire]

Originally posted by zartan74
no i was agreeing with racintweek, not innuendo.


Woops... my bad. I misread, since the post he quoted was directed towards racinweek.

[zartan]

lets back up for a second, though. innuendo, seriously, all childish flaming aside, what position that i hold do you find so repellant? is there any form of political debate that you consider legitimate, or do you consider any disagreement with the government to be whining? can you give me an example of something that you would consider a legitimate gripe about the government and its policies (i.e. do you agree with california's 3 strikes your out felony policies? the prohibition of marijuana? not giving representation to DC in congress? allowing computer-driven redistricting?)?

If you simply consider all political debate to be whining, I'd suggest that you stay out of political debates. If on the other hand you only think that some political debate is whining, I'd suggest you think for a moment about how reasonable it is to try and marginalize things that are important to some people by framing them as simply "whining" rather than important issues.

seriously - i have no interest in this bullshit flaming. there are people on here who disagree with me, many in fact, some of whom aren't particularly verbose in their disagreement, but simply dismissing every statement as whining is extraordinarily petty.

[RACINTWEEK]

the people who sit and play kindergarten name calling games are the reason the gov't can get shit like this past us either
grow up or deal with the consequences of your actions

:redfu:

[multivitamin]

You are wearing signs on your chests that say trample on my civil liberties. Watch out for the ensuing jock itch.

[zartan]

whoa dude thats quite a koan you just dropped there.

[BgBlkGuy]

I think alot of us are opposed to the Patriot Act. I am one that is not. If putting this into effect means that we can avoid another 9/11 then I'm all for it.

[zartan]

there's a lot the government could do to reduce crime. they could make you register your movements throughout the country, too, and allow police officers to search your person or your car without any cause.

the challenge of democracy is to find the right balance between police powers (which of course can "protect" you) and liberty. Many of us (rightfully I believe) think some parts of the Patriot act and other 9/11 security legislation went too far. As Ben Franklin (i think) memorably said, "he who would trade liberty for security deserves neither."

Amen brotha Franklin to that.

[BgBlkGuy]

Alot has changed since Frank was around

[zartan]

not really. a hell of a lot more people died back then than 3,200 on 9/11.

you know we really lose sight of the true impact of 9/11. 3,000 people died. Over 50,000 people died in Iran last week in a single earthquake. *rumble* goodbye 50,000 people.

Yes it was a horrible tragedy... But I think Ben Franklin has a point. The founding fathers were certainly prescient on a lot of other issues...

[BgBlkGuy]

I will agree with you on that. A lot of things in this country need to change.

[badkitty3804]

*steps into political forum for one post*

I have to agree with Eric on this one, things were just as bad, if not worse in his time....it's simply different people involved in the scenerio.

I think that our (and other) government(s) have a very difficult task with balancing security and privacy. Everyone is quick to pounce on bashing things like car searches and raids...until one of those raids or car searches put a terrorist or drug dealer behind bars.

I don't mind legal search and seizure to a point, if you're not doing anything wrong...you have nothing to fear. It drives me crazy hearing people whine and complain about the most simple acts of security like pat downs at clubs.

[zartan]

yeah its definitely a balancing act. but so often the government is stupid about it, and frequently there are examples of security being just totally off-base.

as a frequent flier the thing that most annoys me is this... the whole risk about airplanes is hijacking, right? they're all scared about someone getting another plane and flying it into a building somewhere. well, to do this, you have to get control of the plane.

so you have 2 options - attempt to create a 100% secure environment in 400 enormous commercial airports around the country, not to mention thousands more around teh world, and attempt to create trust with security personnel and screening and whatnot at every single one of these with zero lapses. OR, lock the fucking cockpit doors and don't let pilots open them.

IMO no matter how much patting down and scannign and whatnot they do, they're going to miss a lot of potential weapons coming through security - a fact borne out by Transportation Security Administration tests done 2 months ago where more than half of the weapons they tried to get through security came through undetected. So why worry so much about knives and waste so much time and energy at security checkpoints, instead of just keeping the fucking doors locked?

It just amazes me. It's so obvious to me that the energy should be on finding 100% secure ways to lock the cockpit doors, and doing everything they can to scan for *explosives* in cargo etc, but instead we have TSA spending billions of dollars creating a system to make sure grannies get their scissors taken away from them. It's laughable.

And our country's history is replete with examples of security measures created for legitimate-sounding reasons and going totally awry - like interring japanese-americans, or blacklisting communists, having the FBI follow Elvis around, etc. So it scares the hell out of me when we let our desire for the comforting appearance of security blind us to what in many cases are very frightening and frankly wrong 'adjustments' to the constitution.

Like this absolute bullshit, for example:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46191-2003Dec31.html

[Light Touch]

I think we all can agree on most of this -- nothing good about needlessly giving away our rights for the appearance of safety.

[zartan]

yeah. the TSA thing is so silly to me. I just don't understand why the bureacrats don't just suddenly realize "wait if we just FUCKING LOCK TEH COCKPIT DOOR IT DOESN"T MATTER IF GRANNY BRINGS HER KNITTING NEEDLES ON THE PLANE". Its mindboggling.

Especially since you can be absolutely certain you'll never catch every sharp bladed instrument that comes thru security. Um, you simply put the blade upright perpendicular to the conveyor belt alongside something else and it will appear to be basically nothing at all. Xrays aren't 3d. you can remove the shanks from some knives. Therefore the *entire exercise* of scanning for sharp objects is a *complete* waste of time devoted only to making us feel better about flying, not actually to anything with security. It's absolutely silly.

Believe me it would be a no-problem lark to get a 12" butcher knife on a plane with a few hours of thinking and planning. Any idiot knows this.

[RACINTWEEK]

i have to agree and say 9/11 was tragic, but aour own gov't caused it. if we think we can go anywhere in the world and solve everyones problems we are crazy. lets think about the mid-east we are trying to solve problems that have been around long before there was even a united states of america. butting into other peoples problems (militarily) makes people feel threatened. you cant force solutions onto people and not expect a backlash.
:postal:

[the sex molesters]

maybe i should consider upgrading the encryption protocol on my computer....

[empath]

yeah, because the 128 bit encryption that comes with it could be cracked in just 877,000,000,000,000,000 years by the world's fastest supercomputer.

[buzzboy]

Originally posted by RACINTWEEK
i have to agree and say 9/11 was tragic, but aour own gov't caused it. if we think we can go anywhere in the world and solve everyones problems we are crazy. lets think about the mid-east we are trying to solve problems that have been around long before there was even a united states of america. butting into other peoples problems (militarily) makes people feel threatened. you cant force solutions onto people and not expect a backlash.
:postal:

it wasnt our govt. that caused this it was a misinterpretation of a religious suggestion followed and carried out by calculated psycho-pathic madmen.

[RACINTWEEK]

i do not agree with the terrorists methods but if you had a nother country butting into all your business you would be pissed off too. the our troops are paraded around the world as "peace keepers"
is more like bullying smaller countries with resources that the gov't wants
:buttkick:

[buzzboy]

Originally posted by RACINTWEEK
i do not agree with the terrorists methods but if you had a nother country butting into all your business you would be pissed off too. the our troops are paraded around the world as "peace keepers"
is more like bullying smaller countries with resources that the gov't wants
:buttkick:

even the MOB does "favors" for people when they stand to benifit from it.

[zartan]

did you guys see the just-released secret british papers detailing how the US was going to invade kuwait and saudi arabia in 1973 to get the oil flowign again? just in case you doubt what this whole adventure in iraq is about... it's about OIL and there is NO QUESTION that this is the entire point of the exercise. You don't see us trying to "spread democracy" in sub-saharan africa, despite all Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz's bulllshit bluster about that being one of our objectives. It's about oil, pure and simple, and if you doubt this for a second read this article:

"US Mulled Seizing Oil Fields in 1973" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46321-2003Dec31.html

[Methodus]

Good... Why the fuck would I care? I Need oil. My car needs oil. We all need oil. So let's nuke the fuck out of the middle east and take it.

[zartan]

what a brilliant plan. why would you care? um, because our strategy of propping up middle eastern despots has gotten us payback like 9/11.

anyone who pretends foreign policy doesn't matter or that the US can / should "go it alone" and use our military to get what we want ought to think for a while about the british empire and how well it's working for the brits right now.

[buzzboy]

Originally posted by Methodus
Good... Why the fuck would I care? I Need oil. My car needs oil. We all need oil. So let's nuke the fuck out of the middle east and take it.

nukes are no good, aside from the risk of rendering the oil useless, people have to operate there to make oil fields and maintain them, cant be leaving radiation around.

the US needs to drop the curten hidding the wizard of US, just be straight with the world and say hey we are here and invading this cause we want too. at least then they would be just shady fucks, and not LYING shady fucks.

[RACINTWEEK]

if you think that killing people for $$ is the way to go, dont be pissed off when your next flight crashes in to the white house. is having 3000 people die for our government's profit not enough to wake us up? or do we need to talk about the hundreds of troops who have died in Iraq
so the gov't can make a quick buck?
:redfu:

[BizarroCub]

Originally posted by Methodus
Good... Why the fuck would I care? I Need oil. My car needs oil. We all need oil. So let's nuke the fuck out of the middle east and take it.

Is it me or is this guys posting getting dumber as time progresses?

Gods...and people wonder why I favor abortion...

-Grizz

[zartan]

no, its not you.

although he actually got somewhat reasonable for a while in another thread. so there's hope that he'll just stop trolling and flaming and actually engage in a discussion.

[Methodus]

Originally posted by zartan74
no, its not you.

although he actually got somewhat reasonable for a while in another thread. so there's hope that he'll just stop trolling and flaming and actually engage in a discussion.

I just like to push your buttons. Of course I wouldn't really want to nuke Iraq. I just like saying stuff like that to visualize you guys squirming in your seats in disbelief. Yes, I can engage in an actual discussion...

[Methodus]

Originally posted by BizarroCub


Is it me or is this guys posting getting dumber as time progresses?

Gods...and people wonder why I favor abortion...

-Grizz

I favor the legalization of abortion as well. :D

[Methodus]

Originally posted by RACINTWEEK
if you think that killing people for $$ is the way to go, dont be pissed off when your next flight crashes in to the white house. is having 3000 people die for our government's profit not enough to wake us up? or do we need to talk about the hundreds of troops who have died in Iraq
so the gov't can make a quick buck?
:redfu:

It's comments like these that lead to the "Nuke Iraq" sentiment. Keep your unfounded conspiracy theories to yourself, please.

[zartan]

squirming in our seats? you have a slightly inflated view of your own influence, dawg.

[Methodus]

figuratively squirm in your seats then :D

[Albert's Mom]

Originally posted by zartan74
hey racintweek - orange text means sarcasm; i am kidding, someone made that stupid sort of comment to one of my posts - i.e. 'hey stop bitching about bush, it could be worse, you could live in cambodia' as if that somehow makes everything this administration does 'ok'. zartan, i just thought that you were making a reference to Code Orange.

[BizarroCub]

Originally posted by Methodus


I favor the legalization of abortion as well. :D

No no no...I actually encourage abortion.

Most people don't deserve the right to breed.

And yes it is a right. Not a privaledge.

Most people don't deserve their children.

-Grizz

[zartan]

eek! code orange!

*runs to seal windows with duct tape*

[empath]

I prefer to refer to code orange this way:
http://www.toymuseum.com/inside/c8/3265001.gif

[robotnation]

thats messed up that they wait for a high profile story to shadow the signing of shit like that.

[robotnation]

No no no...I actually encourage abortion.

Most people don't deserve the right to breed.

And yes it is a right. Not a privaledge.

Most people don't deserve their children.

-Grizz

i don't encourage abortion, i encourage contraceptives and stuff like that, i also think people should strongly consider adoption, because i am adopted, and i am kinda glad i'm here today. there isn't much justification for most abortions, like the whole rape thing. the chances of getting pregnant during such a physically traumitic ezperience is almost nil. i don't think we should make it illegal though i agree that the world is overpopulated, but aborting just a few pregnancies won't solve shit when there are still people havin 8 kids and stuff

[the sex molesters]

bait and switch.

[FlashAtom]

What did franklin say? those that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety, deserve neither
liberty or safety? makes sense to me, patriot act will go down as the worst piece of legislation ever enacted. I dont like the idea of being held by our goverment and not being charged and with this act , for the first time we legally can be.

[BizarroCub]

i don't encourage abortion, i encourage contraceptives and stuff like that, i also think people should strongly consider adoption, because i am adopted, and i am kinda glad i'm here today.

Adoption is great. If it was actually used and frankly, I'd rather have a child not exist than grow up in far from satisfactory circumstances. :shrug:

And contraception is great but not foolproof and I'd rather people go abort the child from a contraception mistake than carry it to term and possibly add another burden to society or throw it away for adoption, when they shouldn't have had it in the first place.

i agree that the world is overpopulated, but aborting just a few pregnancies won't solve shit when there are still people havin 8 kids and stuff

And often times those same people are the same ones who didn't avow themselves of the option of abortion when they should have...

[Methodus]

God I hate newbies and their oh-so typical thread resurrection.

You do realize this is two years old right?

[Bavarias_Finest]

ITS ALIVE !!!

(the thread)