[BlackGriffen]

Yahoo has the story.

Good riddance, now let's see if the other problematic sections can get knocked down.

BlackGriffen

[MacGorilla]

Good start. Keep 'em coming

[mr. natural]

Posted by BlackGriffen:

Good riddance, now let's see if the other problematic sections can get knocked down.

You mean the guy in charge of this charade, right?

Let us pray, shall we?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
You mean the guy in charge of this charade, right?

Let us pray, shall we?

You mean Edwards? Aw, crap, he co-authored the bill, didn't he?
*removes tongue from cheek*

BG

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
You mean Edwards? Aw, crap, he co-authored the bill, didn't he?
*removes tongue from cheek*

BG

Yeah so much for it being a vast, right-wing conspiracy.

Did you even read the article?

The Patriot Act is far from going down in flames.

[placebo1969]

i read the Yahoo article and others. The portion that was ruled Unconstitutional appears to be a very small part to the Act. I really don't see this causing the Act to "go down in flames." I do see this ruling going up to the Supreme Court, possibly.

[Millennium]

Score one for the good guys!

A shame that this was a relatively innocuous (still horrific, but not the worst by any means) section of the Act which was struck down. Nevertheless, it is a good first step towards undoing the greatest act of treason committed by our own government in recent years.

[vmarks]

Today's Kerry excoriates Attorney General John Ashcroft for violating American civil liberties with his evil tool, the Patriot Act. "We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night," Kerry huffs. "So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time." Maybe Kerry should have thought about that before voting for the Patriot Act in 2001 — since laws and liberties are pretty important and all.

Back before he had to worry about competing with one Howard Dean, Kerry was positively delighted by the Patriot Act. "It reflects," he said on the Senate floor, "an enormous amount of hard work by the members of the Senate Banking Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee. I congratulate them and thank them for that work." While supportive of "sunset" provisions in the bill, Kerry pronounced himself "pleased at the compromise we have reached on the anti-terrorism legislation." These are not the words of a man about to help inaugurate an era of brown-shirt law enforcement.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Today's Kerry excoriates Attorney General John Ashcroft for violating American civil liberties with his evil tool, the Patriot Act. "We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night," Kerry huffs. "So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time." Maybe Kerry should have thought about that before voting for the Patriot Act in 2001 — since laws and liberties are pretty important and all.

Back before he had to worry about competing with one Howard Dean, Kerry was positively delighted by the Patriot Act. "It reflects," he said on the Senate floor, "an enormous amount of hard work by the members of the Senate Banking Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee. I congratulate them and thank them for that work." While supportive of "sunset" provisions in the bill, Kerry pronounced himself "pleased at the compromise we have reached on the anti-terrorism legislation." These are not the words of a man about to help inaugurate an era of brown-shirt law enforcement.

FWIW, I find this sort of argument bizarre. The Patriot Act was pushed through immediately after 9/11, and Bush pretty much labeled anyone who opposed it anti-american and a traitor. There was serious and malicious arm-twisting going on, both in front of and behind the scenes, and the political climate that Bush took advantage of was very poisonous politically to anyone who stood in front of the juggernaut. You'd be hard pressed to locate anyone who opposed it, and those who did suffered outrageous slanderous attacks, if you'll recall.

It's rather disingenuous for people who THEN were hell bent on labeling anyone who opposed the patriot act guilty of treason or being communists to NOW criticize them for supporting it.

[vmarks]

Ah, but it wasn't me who was bent on labelling anyone who opposed it back then (or now for that matter), and you know it. We've had that discussion before.

As I recall, Russ Feingold opposed it eloquently and convincingly, and if he hadn't made a mockery of political free speech with his campaign finance reform law, I would be impressed by him today.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Ah, but it wasn't me who was bent on labelling anyone who opposed it back then (or now for that matter), and you know it. We've had that discussion before.

As I recall, Russ Feingold opposed it eloquently and convincingly, and if he hadn't made a mockery of political free speech with his campaign finance reform law, I would be impressed by him today.

I didn't mean you were one who was doing both....I meant "people" as the generic population....my point is that it was political poison at that time to oppose it, no matter how wrong it was to support it. Politicians will not swallow political poison easily, Bush knew it and that's why the PA was ramrodded through while the iron was hot.....

and wasn't Feingold attacked for being unpatriotic? That was my point.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by vmarks:

Back before he had to worry about competing with one Howard Dean, Kerry was positively delighted by the Patriot Act.

America is at the crossroads. Bush has direction. Dean has direction. Kerry is all over the place. Sheep are like that.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
America is at the crossroads. Bush has direction. Dean has direction. Kerry is all over the place. Sheep are like that.

Dean has no direction. Why do you think that his campaign is de-railed.

[Zimphire]

Well I guess if you are afraid of the Patriot Act, you should be glad Dean is failing.

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107_2-5147158.html

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Well I guess if you are afraid of the Patriot Act, you should be glad Dean is failing.

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107_2-5147158.html

HOLY SHNIKIES!!! BATMAN. That is freaking scary.

Is he insane?

[Evan_11]

Dean supporters will label this technology as 'cool'.

This would be only be the beginning. The Mad Dr. would probably go as far as making it mandatory to have id chips implanted under our fingertips.

At least I don't have to worry about the Patriot Act affecting me. Liberals are worried it might make it easier to catch their Anarchist brethren.

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Dean supporters will label this technology as 'cool'.

This would be only be the beginning. The Mad Dr. would probably go as far as making it mandatory to have id chips implanted under our fingertips.

At least I don't have to worry about the Patriot Act affecting me. Liberals are worried it might make it easier to catch their Anarchist brethren.

Always funny when someone on one side or the other uses labels and exaggeration when they don't really have a point to make in the debate at hand.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
At least I don't have to worry about the Patriot Act affecting me.

au contraire.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Dean supporters will label this technology as 'cool'.

This would be only be the beginning. The Mad Dr. would probably go as far as making it mandatory to have id chips implanted under our fingertips.

At least I don't have to worry about the Patriot Act affecting me. Liberals are worried it might make it easier to catch their Anarchist brethren.

Driver's license standardization has been a hot topic for years. It would take on issues such as fake ID's, and identity theft. Not to mention saves states millions of dollars. here is the House Bill on the subject

Google for it, and you'll find it has been recommended by lots of people--most of whom are very conservative in their politics. Just another example of how Dean isn't nearly as "liberal" as the media wants you to think he is.

As for national ID's, that idea has been floated around a lot. In fact, The Homeland Security Dept. and Bush have toyed with the idea several times since 9/11. Of course, every time there is a massive public outcry about it, they drop it.

And if you think the Patriot Act can't effect you, I can only hope your name never gets mistakenly put on some list. If you're comfortable with the idea that one single politician or government bereaucrat can simply put your name on a list empowering police agencies to tap your phones and search your home without a warrant. In fact, they can lock you up, deny you access to a lawyer, not even tell anyone where you are (including your family) and never even charge you with a crime.

Remember that guy on your HS football team who you called a "faggot" all the time? Yeah, he grew up to be an FBI Field Supervisor and he remembers you just fine. In fact, he seems to remember that you read "Catcher in the Rye" and liked it a lot. And he can take your life away without even telling anyone or answering to a judge or jury.

We all know there are dirty cops out there. We all know there are dirty Feds. In fact in the 50-60's, such abuses were rampant enough that we passed laws to protect citizens. Now the Patriot Act has removed most of those protections.

Seriously. Think about it. No warrant. No judge. No lawyer. No charges. Indefinitely. No phone call. Nothing. All based on the word of one politician or bereaucrat who puts your name on a list.

[vmpaul]

Knock it off man, you're scaring me.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Knock it off man, you're scaring me.

I hate to resort to such an emotional argument, but I seriously can't believe no one thinks the Patriot Act will effect them.

If you're not suspicious of the current crop of politicians and Feds, then simply imagine what happens to the abuse of power under future administrations. You might trust Bush or Ashcroft ( :shudder: ) but are you willing to empower every future president, CIA director, Atty General, FBI officer, that might abuse such powers?

There are technical aspects of the Patriot Act that are arguably positive in addressing some bereaucratic issues of domestic security, but the entire thing is so utterly bloated with outrageous empowerments to government officials (present and future) that it should honestly scare the bejesus out of anyone who values the Bill of Rights.

[vmpaul]

No, your warnings are well justified. Not to be too partisan, I really question the intelligence of Ashcroft to push this legislation through. Does he think the Republicans are always going to be in power? Does he not see how this can be abused no matter what party is in the White House? As a staunch conservative, does he not see this as a another expansion of big government? I don't get it.

The good news is that it really seems to be an issue among the Dems so it will be discussed during the election cycle. Also, it seems portions of it are finally being contested in the courts. Let's hope that continues.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
No, your warnings are well justified. Not to be too partisan, I really question the intelligence of Ashcroft to push this legislation through. Does he think the Republicans are always going to be in power? Does he not see how this can be abused no matter what party is in the White House? As a staunch conservative, does he not see this as a another expansion of big government? I don't get it.

I saw an interview with Peter Jennings in which Jennings asked Ashcroft about what he would like his legacy to be. Ashcroft didn't even hesitate to state he couldn't care less what anyone now or in the future thought of him, he was only concerned with how he would be judged by God on judgement day. He was doing the Lord's work.

Does that answer your question?

[Logic]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I saw an interview with Peter Jennings in which Jennings asked Ashcroft about what he would like his legacy to be. Ashcroft didn't even hesitate to state he couldn't care less what anyone now or in the future thought of him, he was only concerned with how he would be judged by God on judgement day. He was doing the Lord's work.

Does that answer your question?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Logic:

Looks like America is finally entering the Dark Ages - 900 years late.

But seriously, this guy is part of GOVERNMENT?

-s*

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I saw an interview with Peter Jennings in which Jennings asked Ashcroft about what he would like his legacy to be. Ashcroft didn't even hesitate to state he couldn't care less what anyone now or in the future thought of him, he was only concerned with how he would be judged by God on judgement day. He was doing the Lord's work.

That's not quite what he said. If you're going to quote someone, at least quote them accurately.

ASHCROFT: (laughs) People are free to say and do about me anything they choose to.

JENNINGS: Of course they are, but do you think, what, but, but analyze them for us.

ASHCROFT: I think they miss the mark here. I am very concerned about freedoms. I always have been. My heritage has been one that has been focused on the liberties of individuals. And I will continue to have those concerns. And the reason I'm as ardent as I am about prosecuting the war on terror is that terror is the number one threat to our freedoms.

JENNINGS: One of the members of your staff said you're more concerned about the judgment of history than opportunists on either side of this great debate about the Patriot Act and civil liberties.

ASHCROFT: The truth of the matter is, I'm more concerned about the judgment of eternity. When I look in the mirror, I want to be able to think that, in the presence and in the sight of God, I will have done my utmost to serve this country with honesty and integrity. That's the most important thing.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
If you're not suspicious of the current crop of politicians and Feds, then simply imagine what happens to the abuse of power under future administrations. You might trust Bush or Ashcroft ( :shudder: ) but are you willing to empower every future president, CIA director, Atty General, FBI officer, that might abuse such powers?

Or to put in terms the righties can appreciate:

Imagine Janet Reno with Patriot Act-level authority.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Or to put in terms the righties can appreciate:

Imagine Janet Reno with Patriot Act-level authority.

LOL