Slashdot Mirror
How has the USA PATRIOT Act Affected You?
wetdogjp asks: "October 26th, 2004 marked the third anniversary of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (or USA PATRIOT Act, as it is more commonly known). While the Slashdot crowd can certainly muster the enthusiasm to debate its pro's and con's, I'd like to know: How has the USA PATRIOT Act affected you, personally? How has it interfered with your personal and professional life? Has this act influenced your Presidential vote?"
It hasn't really affected me. I do hear some clicking in my phone every time I talk on it, but I think that's just the phoneline.
Hey, dumbshit. The whole point of the PATRIOT Act is that you won't know if you're under investigation under the terms of the PATRIOT Act.
Rule #2: If this your first revolution, you have to fight.
Considering the government can now obtain secret warrents and perform search without your knowledge how do you know it has not affected you?
I'm a Canadian that feels deeply disappointed that so many Americans can still vote for someone like Bush. Yikes!
Meh.
Completely robbed me of my faith in my country.
-Zeecog
As Americans, we are responsible for perpetuating our civil liberties. According to your response, we shouldn't exhibit concern for the 0.1% of Americans that have been affected. That complacency would merely encourage the legislators to enact additional laws, and those laws would eventually affect 100% of the American population.
Do you like German cars?
I used to be apathetic about government and politics. Uniniterested in 'what those wanks in Washington were doing'. The first inkling of a problem was the CDA (Communications Decency Act), which was scary, but okay, some bad legistlation is bound to happen.
:)
Then Bush and his cronies moved in, and anything even approaching preservation of civil liberties, the Constitution, or... okay, lets be honest, our dignity... went totally out the window in pursuit of idealism and Empire building.
I'm ashamed that the coutnry I live in could put a man like George Bush in power, could support a congress that would ratify such onerous legislation as the Patriot Act, and, what's worse, even consider re-electing this man. (As I type this, the US elections are still undecided).
More commentary on my blog, I'm done ranting here.
Event Management Solutions : http://www.stonekeep.com/
Well, I work at a Canadian bank and we've had to stop outsourcing alot of our contingency server hosting to the US. Given certain provisions and interpretations of the PATRIOT act, we cannot guarantee privacy of personal data to our customers -- as we must do as indicated by Canadian law. So now instead of having a primary datacentre in Toronto and a backup in South Carolina, we're moving everything out west to Alberta. We still run servers and call centres in the US, but all the data warehousing is now 100% Canadian.
So, if you work in IT, I suspect alot of people have been indirectly affected but don't realise it. I doubt you'll have SWAT teams bursting into your house and seizing your home PC due to using Kazaa, but the aggregate affect over the entire economy is tough to measure.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
Why would this affect my vote for president when both major candidates are in favor of the act?
Imagine how many terrorist cells would be brought down if we just turned the world into a complete police state.
Sundance has a film running on this theme that has a few illustrations
Also, remember Pastor Martin Niemoller's poem in the 1940s
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out--because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out--because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out--because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Basically, that is the concern that causes some people to speak out about the Patriot Act.
My friend was taken away in about 5 minutes to some secret underground interrogation room, and didn't come back for about 3 hours.
I was questioned at the scene about any knowledge I had about blank checks and my friend's connection to terrorist organizations.
The police asked to search my car, and when I refused, I was suddenly surrounded by members of the SWAT team, dogs, machine guns and all.
They searched my car with me on the ground at gun point (during rush hour in downtown DC, no less!), and needless to say, found no fake checks.
When all was said and done, the man in charge of the Anti-Terrorism Task Force/Secret Service Police shook my hand and thanked me for doing a great service to America, and a great service for freedom. My pleasure.
Apparently, someone with a grudge against my friend had called a contact at the treasury dept. and told him that we were all involved in a money laundering scheme. They take those threats pretty seriously.
Oh yeah, they also stole the chinese food I had brought home for lunch :(
No heaven can heaven be, if my horse isn't there to welcome me.
Other Presidents who took away civil liberties include
Lincoln - During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and frequently imprisoned Southern spies and sympathizers without trial as well as imprisoned Newspaper editors and martial law was declared in cities like Baltimore.
Wilson - During World War I, Congress curbed civil liberties with sweeping censorship and antisedition laws. In 1919 the Attorney General, A. Mitchell Palmer, responded to a bombing at his home by authorizing raids in 33 cities and arresting 6,000 people, most of them immigrants, some of them citizens, on suspicion that they were Communists or anarchists. Soon after declaring war on Germany and its allies in 1917, Congress ruled that the U.S. mail could not be used for sending any material urging "treason, insurrection or forcible resistance to any law." It punished offenders with a fine of up to $5,000 and a five-year prison term. The government soon banned magazines including THE MASSES and THE NATION from the mails for expressing anti-war sentiment.
FDR - Japanese American Internment, German American Interment, Italian American Internment. On Feb. 19, 1942, Roosevelt signed an executive order authorizing the secretary of war or military commanders designated by him to establish "military areas" from which "any or all persons" could be removed. In 1942 the Supreme Court ruled that Roosevelt's military commissions were constitutional when used to try eight Nazi saboteurs for violating the laws of war, spying and conspiracy.
Truman - National secrecy laws, CIA establishment
Clinton - The copyright laws, President Clinton asked Congress for the authority to conduct "roving wiretaps''--that is, wiretaps not on a particular phone but on any phone used by a particular individual--without court approval. Although that specific provision did not pass, the 1996 terrorism bill did expand the government's wiretapping authority. During the Clinton administration, HUD began investigating and threatening community activists who objected to shelters and public housing units in their neighborhoods. In New York, Berkeley, Seattle, and other places HUD enforcers demanded correspondence, minutes of meetings, flyers, and lists of contributors on the grounds that the activists were engaged in illegal racial harassment.
#!/bin/sh
;;
;;
case $Election_Outcome in
Kerry )
echo "The Patriot Act has had a significant impact on my life. Some of it has been indirect, like the Wiccan friend (who was my friend before she was even Wiccan) in another part of the country who warned me that knowing her might jepoardize my clearance...it already had for some of her other friends. And the only reason why is because of her affiliation with a Wiccan coven. I'd point out that the Supreme Court has ruled that Wicca is a valid religion, and that covens are eligible for tax-exempt status as such."
Bush )
"Ah, the glorious Patriot Act! It has done nothing but brought cheer and happiness to me since it was first conceived. My papers are in order, ja?"
esac
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Will this really affect me in any meaningful way? Probably not. However it's still a little weird.
Except for that Oklahoma City bombing, of course.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
So, you're saying that the intent will always match the usage? It never will be (and never has been) used for purposes other than combating terrorism? You're new on this world, aren't you?
Ever heard of a guy named J. Edgar Hoover? Richard Nixon? You think if you come home someday and find a bug on your phone you're going to be able to say into it, "Whoa, dude, I'm a musician, not a terrorist!" and they'll immediately come remove the bug?
Only terrorism, huh? How about this? How about this? Or this?
Dude, face facts. It doesn't matter what the people who voted for the PATRIOT act intended, what matters is how it's used - or, in reality, abused. Fact is, it's being used EXACTLY the way Ashcroft and cronies intended - for non-terror-related investigations.
Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
The USAPATRIOT act may not have affected me in any material way, but it has affected me in some very serious ways, namely a loss of faith in some of the basic principles that make up my idea of what America IS.
By allowing expanded powers to the investigative branches of the government with only minimal oversight by the judicial branch, the act undermines my protections under the 4th amendment. Sneak-and-peak warrants have been allowed under the FISA and criminal statutes since the late 60's, with probable cause, and with bench approval.
Now, however, the standards have been lowered to a point that the average citizen can have their private records and personal affects searched (and bugged) for, what would have been in the past, only minimally suspicious behaviors. Imagine, for instance, that you are a student researching a paper for a comparative religion class that takes you into the realm of researching reasons, justifications, and methods used by suicide bombers/terrorists. With only the barest of oversight, the government now has the right to partake of surveillance that would have been considered "beyond the pale" only 3 years ago.
My biggest complaint, however, has nothing to do with the above. It has to do with the "Enemy Combatant" detainments that have been an ongoing problem in the judicial system. Under the 6th amendment, we have the right to a speedy and public trial. By right, we have for the last 200+ years enjoyed this protection under the bill of rights. Now, though, if the government can come up with a reason to label you an enemy combatant, they can hold you for an indefinite time in an undisclosed location, with no access to legal counsel.
At one point in the past, I was a Muslim. I frequented a mosque that I discovered (many years after the fact) was frequented by "unsavory" types that were recruiting people to fight in one of the earlier Palestinian Intifada's. Do I now have to forever look o'er my shoulder to see if I am being followed? Maybe.
Both of the above situations are also are protected by the 14th amendment (due process), but this due process has been undermined by the USA Patriot act.
How can we truly call ourselves the land of the free when we allow our constitutional freedoms to be circumvented by acts of congress?
== That terrible green-green grass, and violent blooms of flower dresses, and afternoons that make me sleepy.==
Actually, Hoover was collecting infromation on influential people far beyond the Nixon administration. Hey seemed to have a particular liking to Frank Sinatra & the rest of the rat pack, Lucy & Desi, and almost any other person who affliated with with said people.
This information, which he held in a special vault, was thought to be used to help him keep his reign over the FBI.
What type of data were in the files. Not just allegations of potential wrong doing, but sexual relations, money transactions, friends lists, and any other piece of gossip attached to the persons name.
This was done by a man, whose purpose of being brought into the position, was to clean-up the same type of corruption that he was doing. If you think these tactics have changed, then your far more trusting than me.
Shoot, even Orson Wells was trying to get Hoovers endorsement on '1984', hopefully to sell books.
Now on to the topic.
How has the Patriot Act affected me. Well to my knowledge, it hasn't. Then again, I doubt most of the Celeb's who Hoover investigated knew about the massive file built up on them. The said files, never we destroyed, until Hoover died, and his secretary thought it wouldn't really do Hoover any justice to have these files found by the public.
Also, since the Patriot Act isn't permament, I would believe law enforcement officials would be less likely to push the boundaries of the Act.
For Americans to be willing to be so trusting of a government that has not been very great at protecting the rights of its citizens, seems to be unAmerican.
I rather not have a President that will do anything to win the war on Terror, than a President that will win the war on Terror while upholding the aspects that make us Americans to begin with.
" wacko... seriously, we live in a democracy as you're witnessing tonight - not a dictatorship"
First off, this is NOT a democracy, it is a representative republic. When is the last time YOU voted on a new law? If this was in fact a democracy, your vote would decide who is president, not the Electoral College's.
"Paranoia is out there..."
I agree, I guess that's why you posted anonymously!
... and who doesn't live in the country:
The Patriot act has made me decide to never go to the US. There's a lot of stuff I'd like to see and do there, but I will never enter the US as long as Bush is in power and legislation like the DCMA and the Patriot Act are law.
/mike
-- "So, what's the deal with Auntie Gerschwitz et all?"
As one poster pointed out, you wouldn't have caught Timothy McVeigh with your scheme.
You also wouldn't have caught the dude that burned all those churches in the South a few years back, nor any of the abortion-clinic bombers, nor would you have prevented the Columbine Massacre, not to mention the Kittamer Massacre.
Unfortunately, in the USA, we have cheapened citizenship so much that there is almost no difference in privileges and rights claimed by non-citizens and a citizens in the USA.
The declaration of independence sorta sets the stage. It is a legal document that declares our freedom from Britain. Personally, I'd like to see the Brits point out how we've failed to meet our promises in said Declaration, and that means ownership of the country reverts back to them. Wouldn't that be fun? Anyway, the Declaration of Independence says something about holding certain rights to be inalienable, and says *nothing* about "inalienable only for american citizens, but foreigners don't enjoy these rights in our land".
This country was built by immigrants. To treat foreigners like you would treat them is to spit on our own roots, and then, of course, we can never go home again.
Like what I said? You might like my music
The PATRIOT Act also allows _any_ judge anywhere in the country to authorize a search of your house, no matter where you live. In other words, the feds need only find one single judge to rubber stamp their warrants and they have essentially unlimited power of searches in every state of the union. So just what good is the requirement of a warrant?
Dyolf Knip
Thats debatable. The language used in the constitution (and more importantly, the bill of rights) imply that most rights apply to non-citizens.
Most importantly regarding the current treatment of non-citizen "terrorists":
Amendment V : No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI : In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment XIV Section 1 : All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You'll note that at other points in the Constitution and its amendments, when it means citizen, it SAYS citizen.
You left the part out about where they can come into your home, search your belongings, and remove belongings without telling you.
Thank goodness the laws had an expiration date on them. We have to remember, the number of terrorists convicted as a direct result of these infractions on our Bill of Rights remains a big 0.
To quote a small section I think is wrong:
"reasonably suspected based on credible evidence of engaging in terrorist acts or money laundering activities."
The "or money laundering activities" leaves an open invitation to abuse. This opens the uses of this law up to be used against just about anyone, not just terrorists. Take the abuses in vegas and dope busts. None of this activity will save anyone from any terrorist.
While I feel it is important for the US to maintain a sense of law and order, I do not condone such an extreme set of laws to bust pot smokers and adult entertainers for their doings.
--The Angry Liberal
This would be the same country that was built on slavery, that had racial segregation and which treated blacks as second class citizens until only a few decades ago, that still treats its indigenous peoples as worse than second class citizens in many aspects, that has clear sexual discrimination in the workplace (women still earn less than men), that has clear homophobic discrimination in government (gays in the military), that has a President that wants to discriminate further against gays (gay marriage), that has illegal internment of anyone with even partial Japanese heritage (during WWII) and McCarthyism (when freedom of expression went out the window) in its recent past and has now resorted to illegal internment and religious McCarthyism again.
Yeah, because nothing could ever be shown to have been held unfairly against anyone at anytime in America's recent history, could it?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Your only hope is to have it shot down in the Supreme Court now. Both parties have been pushing for this for some time. The People had already spoken. We consistently and emphatically told them 'hell no'. Three strikes, you're out, right? Oh no! Now the world's a different place with all the terrorists running about! Privacy is great an all, but the founding fathers could hardly anticipate terrorism! Get with the program you whining liberal pinkos! Now the FBI can sign their own warrant, sneak into your home, plant bugs and video cameras, and basically make Amendment 4 null and void.
May I make one suggestion; Would you be so kind as to change your name from FBI to KGB and give up any pretense? Thanks.
The PATRIOT Act has affected me quite personally.
I'm a high school senior. This summer, I was in Ithaca visiting Cornell. After our visit to the campus, we decided to do some exploring of the area, because it's really quite lonely up there but also quite quaint. We figured we could find a cute little town down by the lake there. We decided to check out Aurora on Route 90.
Well, we turned down another road by accident. It was unmarked and at a 10% grade downhill. We wound up at the lake, certainly, but not in Aurora. We found ourselves at a power plant. Obviously, we knew we were in the wrong place, so we stopped.
My dad suggested I get out of the car and take some pictures. The sun was setting and the area was terribly scenic. At this time, another car, a dark sedan that had been following us down the road, made a quick turnaround. I proceeded to get out of the car and take some pictures. My dad called me back, so I ran back to the car, and we drove off. That was at 7:38 pm.
Fast forward to 11pm. My family is at the hotel, and my sister and I are trying to go to sleep. For reference, we have two adjoining rooms, one for my parents and one for me and my sister. Somebody bangs on my parents' door saying he's with the state police. My sister and I heard it and we assumed it was a joke.
It wasn't a joke at all. The New York State Police really came into my parents' room and started questioning them. My sister and I had sort of gotten up and were listening through the door. Keep in mind that at this time I'm in my pajamas and without my contacts. The officers notice someone next door, and we come into my parents' room.
The State Police were investigating a possible terrorist threat: me.
My dad had been talking for me, but there were inconsistencies in his story. Obviously. He wasn't the one taking the pictures after all. I didn't remember exactly what happened, as in which picture I took in what order, because it wasn't as if I thought I would need to know that.
THe officers want to see my camera, so my dad goes and gets it from the car. I'm in tears, because here I am, half blind and not dressed, being accused of being a TERRORIST.
I showed them my camera, and they thought it was digital, but it's not; it only appears so because it's got a large LCD status display on the back. (Thank goodness I stick to film, because I don't want to think about what might've happened to me had it been a digital camera.)
The entire scene at the plant had been recorded by a security camera, and the way the other car was there coupled by how I ran back to the car and how quickly my dad turned around made our behavior seem very suspicious.
The police told me that that power plant supplies one-sixteenth of the power to the East Coast and that knocking it out would leave millions without power for months. My case was especially worsened by the fact that there had been a legitimate threat against another area plant that same day. They told us we were lucky they found us: they'd had to stop a bulletin going out to the whole East Coast looking for our car. If they hadn't, the next day we would have been surrounded by 20 state police cars with guns to our heads. If that's not a threat, I don't know what is.
They wanted my film. I used up the last shot on the roll just by taking a picture of the floor, and then I handed the film over. The fact that I had fourth amendment rights never occurred to me. I was quite frankly scared out of my mind. Other people I've told said they would have refused, but my life had just been threatened. I think that's the part they don't get.
So they took my film and left. I couldn't sleep for quite a while and was quite visibly upset through the next day.
I'm still paranoid about police.
It took me quite some time to realize that I had done nothing wrong. There were no signs of warning or anything near the power plant. No "Authoriz
There are three problems with the Patriot Act. The first is obviously a suspension of due process. Within 6 months of passing it, the Bush administration was boasting that it had been used to to prosecute drug dealers. This has nothing to do with terrorism, and showed the real intent: a law which could be used to suspend normal due process in the investigation and prosecution of anyone, not just terrorists.
Secondly, there is the invasion of privacy. I really could care less if anyone read all my email or searched my computer. There's nothing incriminating. But this lack of concern only applies if the intent is criminal investigation. Political persecution is another matter. The Patriot Act is a perfect cover for a fascistic Star Chamber. If a group within the intelligence community decided that only those with the proper political views should rise to prominent positions, the Patriot Act would give them the clout to find out who does or doesn't hold these views. The persecution part is easy--just call a prospective employer and drop hints about an investigation into your background and affiliation with criminal organizations. The Patriot Act makes the Thought Police a real possibility. This is why law enforcement was required to get permission and provide notification. It permits ordinary citizens to catch the scent of this kind of activity, permitting correction by civil and political action. A crucial part of the checks and balances of the American system has been disabled.
The third danger is high noise and low signal. If the intelligence community becomes involved in the unneccesary surveilance of innocent civilians, the time, expense, and manpower devoted to this is diverted from genuine threats. The end result is less security, not more. In one of the debates, John Kerry mentioned thousands of hourse of surveilance tapes that have never been watched. Who is going to watch all of this? This is noise. In Britain, where cameras have been installed everywhere, their main usage is to bust people for traffic violations. I suppose that if a terrorist attack does occur, they can look at the tapes later and say, "Oh, there go the terrorists."
What the intelligence community needs to do is focus, get people on the ground, and stop the political infighting that is clogging the system. That means that people in the intelligence community should check their political opinions at the door when they come in, and stop pulling stunts like outing CIA operatives for political gain. The draconian measure currently being used won't help either; if you know a guy who is innocent but might have a lead, you're a lot less likely to give his name if you think he might get shipped to Guantanamo Bay just because he might be a couple steps removed from suspicious characters. And finally, they would have to get rid of John Ashcroft, the incompetent git who lost an election to a dead guy, shut down the FBI people who informed him of the suspicious group of Arabs training in a flight school in Florida, and who has detained 6000 people without finding a single terrorist. As long as he's in place, nothing else will matter.
Yeah, government has never abused its power before. That kinda shit never happens. Well, it happened in the past, but it won't happen again. Right?
Why do I keep typing pythong?
1) Personally: It offends my sense of civil-libertarian principle. The law leaves Americans less-free to go about their business unmolested by the hand of Big Brother. Restrictions on freedom should always be as few as reasonably possible, and the PATRIOT Act certainly doesn't qualify as a justifiable reasonable restriction on freedom in my book. It didn't 3 years ago, and it still does not.
2) Professionally: Having worked in the financial industry, the PATRIOT Act made my employer more-transparent to the govn't for terrorist-spotting purposes. This is a drain on our system resources and therefore, our productivity, and therefore, our efficiency, and therefore, our profits, and therefore, my income. So the PATRIOT Act has regulated away some (perhaps admittedly-small) amount of my income -- and for what?
Nothing except freedom-reduction and inefficiency, as far as I can tell.
Here's a better question: how many terrorists have we caught thanks *solely* to the PATRIOT Act? If we are to justify the law as useful for catching terrorists, then we had better *judge* it based on how many terrorists we catch -- NOT whether we have each been harmed by it. After all, a law that does nothing is a useless law wasting space on the shelves of law libraries across America, continuing to displace liberty in the name of security.
Indeed, true liberty is a lawyer's empty bookshelf.
And if the PATRIOT Act has been unsuccessful in catching terrorists, then the law has failed and we damn well had better repeal it for freedom's sake (and then proceed to find a better solution to the terrorist problem).
Look, just because the law hasn't affected somebody *yet* doesn't mean it *never* will. Take the tax cuts of the Reagan era -- it wasn't a week before Democrats were saying "OMG, it's not working!" But the process isn't that fast -- and in the end, the tax cuts worked.
So too will it be with the PATRIOT Act -- we may not have each been severely violated by it yet, but it is likely we will, sooner or later -- just like the DMCA. Therein lies the problem with the PATRIOT Act, the DMCA, the McCain-Feingold Act, or any other law: sooner or later, it comes back to bite you in the ass. But few people realize it until it's too late...
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
First they came for the smokersBR> and I did not speak out--because I was not a smokers.
Then they came for the red meat eaters
and I did not speak out--because I was not a red meat eater.
Then they came for the drinkers
and I did not speak out--because I was not a drinker.
Then they came for me--
and I said "Do whatever you want. I've been eating bean sprouts and drinking Soy milk for three years and I'm ready to jump in front of a Bus."
Well, for one, you didn't answer what I asked, you didn't provide me with a section. But here is the section you're refering to:
SEC. 218. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION.
Sections 104(a)(7)(B) and section 303(a)(7)(B) (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)(B) and 1823(a)(7)(B)) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 are each amended by striking `the purpose' and inserting `a significant purpose'.
For 2, this doesn't change things. The FBI could still obtain taps against you under FISA. What this does is allow the FBI to persue a criminal prosecution if they find said information. Furthermore, it ignores two very important aspects.
1) If you were in court over this, and lawer worth his salt would argue that any basic criminal evidence found falls under this aspect of FISA
C) that such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;
And you would get said evidence suppressed.
2) It also ignores that there are a ton of hurdles to jump through to use any FISA tap against a US citizen.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Agent Alice: How's the covert electronic suveillance of Slashnerd 172441 going Agent Bob?
Agent Bob: Mostly just harmless anti-government raving Agent Alice. Chances of this dork ever belonging to any sort of revolutionary or terrorist group are pretty fucking slim I'd say. He'd fucking bore them to tears and they'd take him out and execute him themselves. I mean Jesus Christ he even encrypts his goddamned grocery list. He encrypts his personal journal. Like he needs to. Anyone reading it would stop from sheer boredom after a couple of paragraphs. The only thing that keeps me from shoving my Glock in my mouth and blowing my brains out is the porn. He may be a boring dork but at least he has plenty of stolen pornsite passwords. I run his packets though a filter and it snags out the images and video/audio streams and dumps them to a folder for me to peruse. Saves me from having to go find the stuff on my own.
Agent Alice: Pretty clever there Agent Bob since you're getting paid to monitor the subject rather than surf for porn. I bet you even named the folder 'Evidence' or someting like that didn't you.
Agent Bob: Of course I did.
Agent Alice: *chuckles* Keep up the good wood... er I mean work Agent Bob.
Firstly, nice to see you using the Anonymous Coward option for what it was designed for: letting people freely spout whatever they want to free from persecution. Ironically, it's that sort of anonymity and protection of freedom of expression that the PATRIOT ACT essentially undermines.
Having said that, I do prefer it if people are willing to stand up and be counted when voicing a viewpoint that's diametrically opposed to my own. If nothing else, it makes it easier to track a conversation back and forth if I know which messages are being posted by which individual. Funny though, there are some out there that would say that standing up and being counted just makes it easier to weed out unwanted voices of dissent, as many a political prisoner throughout history could testify.
Secondly, it's nice to see you skim over those parts of my post that you don't feel like addressing, presumably because you have no way of rationalising away those forms of unfair discrimination and abuses of power.
Yeah, ignore the fact that a country theoretically built on the principle that "all men are created equal" was practically built with the blood, sweat and tears of a subjugated people. Ignore the fact that the Constitution valued the life of a negro slave as 3/5ths of a man, or that the freed slaves never did get their 40 acres and a mule in compensation.
Ignore the fact that, as recently as a couple of generations ago, blacks couldn't drink from the same water fountain as whites, that blacks had to give up their seats to whites, that blacks couldn't share the same classrooms as whites and that lynchings were a way of life.
Ignore the fact that as badly as black Americans have been treated, that native American peoples have been treated far worse, from the days of Plymouth Rock to Custer to today.
Ignore the fact that a woman doing the same job as a man who's equal to her in every other aspect other than their genders is likely to be earning less than her male counterpart, and is far less likely to be promoted than her male colleague.
Ignore the fact that being gay in the US military is akin to being unfit for service. As if a gay man is any less capable of firing a rifle, driving a tank or flying a plane.
Ignore the fact that the 43rd President of the United States would actively seek to take rights away from people based purely on their sexuality, even where those rights have been specifically granted to them by one or more of the States.
Ignore the fact that nothing more than a person's ethnicity has been used in the past to justify their imprisonment. Japanese Americans and others who spent most of World War II illegally imprisoned in internment camps clearly didn't have any rights.
Ignore the fact that a person's beliefs, however privately they may be held, have been reason enough to hound them unendlessly. Ignore the fact that McCarthyism ever existed and, to put it mildly, that it flew in the face of free speech.
Ignore the fact that post-September 11th, hundreds of Americans of Middle Eastern descent were interned without any legal representation or even access to their families whatsoever. And, whatever you do, ignore Camp X-Ray and everything that's gone on there.
Ignore the racial and religious McCarthyism that's going on right now, where people are routinely discriminated against because their skin is the wrong colour or because of their faith.
And above all, ignore any point that espouses a viewpoint that you disagree with.
I made a list in response to comments by someone who clearly didn't believe that innocents could be unfairly targetted in the US. I made a list to educate him that, unfortunately, innocents can and have been unfairly targetted in the US several times.
The land of the free isn't supposed to be the land of the free for most of the people, it's meant to be the land of the free for all of the people.
If you're so uncomfortable with a short list of examples of your country's failings then you really need to examine why it is you feel the need to defend the indefensible.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
It's not the "Patriot" Act; it's the "USAPATRIOT" Act.
Please use the full acronym, or its full name: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism".
The "USAPATRIOT" Act has nothing to do with patriotism, so calling it the "Patriot Act" is misleading.
(Considering how the Act is being misused these days, even using its full name is somewhat misleading (How is copyright infringement "terrorism"?).)
Personally, I pronounce it "the you sap at riot act" to avoid confusion.
Other pronunciations are "the US ap uh TRY ot act" and (as Jar-Jar) "the YOUsa pah TR-R-RE-E-E at act".
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Ah, but there's a meaningful difference between white and purple. There's no meaningful differencde between homosexual and heterosexual partnership defined by word "marriage". Well, there is if you want the word to imply that there is a possibility for the male and female being biological father and mother for common children. But if you add that requirement, then for example sterile people could not get married by that definition. On the other hand, if you define marriage to mean a partnership defined in the Bible, don't be surprised if others disagree.
Marriage is very much a social term, and as social structures change, also the meaning of the term must change. Language lives with the society, words get new meanings etc. But since "marriage" is an archaic term that doesn't have a definite meaning in modern language and global community, it should be replaced for example with "registered parnership" in all legal text etc, to avoid misunderstandings and confusion about the core issue. "Marriage" should be reserved for religious contexts etc, where the ambiguiety would not matter since context would be more clearly defined.
If one type of "registered partnership" is given preferential treatment by law because some people think it's the only "right" way to have such a partnership, and other types are denied same priviledges (eg tax breaks, divorce law protections), then it does enter into this. If somebody thinks it's wrong and causes a lot of undue suffering (which is does), why should they pay more taxes so that those "married" can pay less?