Someone PLEASE debunk this

Arrrrggggggg! (thumps head of wall) this is all getting a bit tautologous… If the government wants the power to crack down on terrorists, but is hindered by the protection the current legislation provides them, surely the obvious step would be to seek reform. I really can’t see that the goal of introducing these ratifications is to screw with law-abiding Mr. Jones from number 27 as opposed to making it easier to administer punitive measures to real threats to your homeland security. Nothing leaves a more sour taste in my mouth than real criminals flicking a big F.O. to society as they sit behind the protection of layer upon layer of beuracracy. To my mind encouraging terrorist activities through a softly-softly legal system awash with loop-holes and appeal courts is a far greater threat to the US than Capitol Hill going Big Brother on your ass.

I tend to insist until I get an answer to my questions when I believe their pertinent. And asking what is the purpose of a legislation, it's reinforcement and how it's carried out is pertinent imo.
Maybe I shouldn't be but I actually am pissed when people living and loving Democracy do not feel it's their duty to know what is going on with the people they elected and sort of blindly trust them. Imagine me when elected politicians themselves do not read the bills they vote.
The Patriot Act is a very important bill, in it's official purpose, in it's real purpose, in it's timing, in what it reforms. It touches the basic freedoms of the people. No one, not even the men who wrote the text, denies it.
The split in public opinion is on wether it's acceptable to "sacrifice" such freedoms for security, or or such freedoms untouchable.
The freedoms I'm on about are the right to privacy, to a fair trial, to equality...
IMO these are untouchable rights. If the majority of the people thinks differently fine, that's the rule, but the issue is important enough to at least read the bill. You don't just vote something that rethinks a fundamental root of your society without knowing anything about the new direction taken. Yet that's what happened and that's what makes me suspicious about it.

Of course, go ahead, I'm opened as long as I'm informed, the people weren't, and the politicians voting the legislation know what's at stake, they didn't. They weren't even consulted. The whole text was written by Ashcroft and his crew. All they needed was a good title: "The Patriot Act", understand "if you don't vote it, you're unpatriotic, which is everything but what you want to be as a politician (and even as an American)".

And how exactly did the previous legislation hinder anyone?
ie: The info that there were going to be terrorist attacks with planes on major cities reached the oval office way before 9/11. Yet the planes were out of their course for 45 minutes with no one doing anything. (When F16 should have been beside the planes in less then 10 minutes according to routine military procedures). The problem is not in getting the info, it's in understanding it and acting in consequence. The solution to this is not getting rid of people's basic rights.


Call me paranoid but I see a direct link between the government knowing everything about everyone (from your bank accounts to your medical record, your school record to your phone bill) and it's links with the biggest coorporations on the planet. They'll know exactly what you do, when you do it, why you like it and how you like it. They'll know how to provoque your interest for any sort of product, from your insurance to your shampoo.
I'd call that "screwing with law-abiding Mr. Jones from number 27 ".

It's possible to nail these bastards and sent them to jail forever. Better, it's been done before.
ie: French and Spanish governments and intelligence have caught, trialed and jailed terrorists (islamists or ETA) before without the whole population loosing one inch of it's freedoms or rights. The Brits delt with the IRA without sacrifying "Habeas Corpus".
Why can't the US?

Where and when has a terrorist ever been freed because of "softly-softly legal system awash with loop-holes and appeal courts"?

Ponrauil

I have to admit I was amazed at the number of signatories entering blindly into things. Now I grant you, that is very scary… at the very least, I imagine they have a plethora of people who would have been able to thoroughly read the act and summarise it if they couldn’t bring themselves to carry out their duty and actually be bothered to check what they are agreeing to. Yes, I’m 100% behind you on this one, it’s an outrage, anyone that tries to back out now by stating they “didn’t understand what they were signing” should offer their resignation.

I’ve spent a bit of time looking through a large list of complaints made by several bodies as to how the patriot act has provided law enforcement services to investigate and obtain prosecution of individuals where before they would not have been able to. There seems to be a particular outcry at the patriot act being used domestically as a carte blanche to prosecute associated crimes that may be linked to terrorism, such as business people with known terror links laundering money and amateur scientists dabbling in a bit of home pathogen production. You may say this is a fairly blunt view but however extensive the list of suggested “misapplication” is, it has facilitated the prosecution of previously untouchable individuals involved in serious criminal activity.

I know for a fact that a few of us have reiterated this point in many threads but at the simplest of levels, if you are not breaking the law what do you have to fear from this?


Well, I think this kind of kind of answers itself really, it’s not a matter of how governments process information, that is always going to be a subjective issue. However, what if the legislation had been in place that denied Al Qaeda a substantial chunk of their income? That made it increasingly difficult to launder money? The ability to move undetected through the US?

Just as an aside, if they had scrambled their F-16s… what would have happened next?
The public couldn’t contemplate what was going to follow at the world trade centre, so do you really think that George and co. were going to put there necks in the noose, shoot down a couple of planes worth of their own people and face the public backlash or let the tragedy unfold, conveniently giving them a green light to attack just about whoever the hell they wanted to. There are very real transgressions of the ordinary citizen’s most basic rights taking place, why people aren’t protesting about this as opposed to basically defending the rights of a bunch of law-breakers I’ll never understand.

Well yes, I’d be uncomfortable if the majority of the big-players in my parliament comprised high up industry types too… you shouldn’t be able to buy your way into any high office, for once maybe I’m glad most of our politicians are boring sods who went into politics for politics sake.

ETA have just this week unleashed another ferocious bombing campaign, and the English have most certainly not “dealt with the IRA”. I think Gerry Adams et. Al took one look at the US “zero tolerance” stance after September 11th and with the UK in the coalition suddenly thought that maybe the long term occupational benefits of terrorism weren’t looking too grand after all. They just backtracked again recently saying there is no way they will be humiliated and will not prove that they have decommissioned their weapons.

Sod freed! Abdelbaset al-Megrahi got his country off the hook!, offered up as a single Scapegoat for the Lockerbie Bombing, living a good quality of life in a soft prison, I don’t doubt his family are being well looked after. Libya had to say “I’m sorry” and pay a little bit of compensation and in return? We lift trade sanctions against them and pretty much guarantee that they’ll subtly be knocked off the list when George updates his “Axis of Evil” so Muammar can stop bricking it.

That’s screwing with the rights of the victims and their families at international level!... what a funked up world we live in.

In response to the 2nd half of your last post ponraul. The British government is still bending over backwards for the IRA and republicans.

People like Ian Paisley fighting this are blasted as bigots and anti-progress. To be honest, if saying there's no way you're signing an agreement until you actually see the IRA destroy their weapons then call them bigots all they want.

I'm a Protestant, I'm a loyalist but the UVF< UDA et al are just as bad. now they're just a bunch of gangsters fighting each other as opposed to against each other. they're all arseholes in the end.

and to think organisations don't know exactly what we're into, where we;re at etc... is just daft. I said it before in a previous post. with my drivers licence, switch card, Uni card etc.... it's pretty easy for any company or organisation with access to this data (governments included) to find out exactly where im driving, what kinda crap i like to buy, what football team i support etc....

on a side note. was int he paper today a bar in glasgow called soba (never heard of it myself to be honest, must keep out the riff raff ) are piloting a chippign scheme where regulars can walk in and have their drink served without asking for it, not need to take any money in with them, have their favourite music and video's playing etc...

what;s the general consensus on this?

I hate to keep bringing Nazism into this. I hope you know, I do NOT fear a rebirth of Nazism or anything like that, it's just the closest analogy I can find. When Germany and Turkey instituted internal travel passports (basically ID cards), I'm sure the consensus was "if you don't have anything to hide, you don't have anything to fear." That was proven quite wrong as history shows. More information makes it easier for tyrants to hurt the population. The US isn't immune. Look up Operation Keelhaul or Executive Order #9066. Or the persecution of the Mormons as late as the 40s and 50s. Heck, we had government instituted slavery in the form of the draft during the Vietnam war (it doesn't matter what anyone thinks of the draft, whether or not it "makes a man out of you" or any bull like that, if someone commands YOUR BODY at gunpoint, and you have not commited a crime, that is slavery). The reason we don't want to give people this information is because they may not be tyrants right this very moment, but either they will evolve into tyrants, or there are some waiting down the line. You don't give people this kind of power BECAUSE you expect something bad to happen. Thinking you can retain any real rights when the government can seize your assets without compensation or a criminal hearing, when they can tap your phone calls without a warrant, and when you have to show your papers to the nice officer upon demand, is like thinking you can defend the castle with all the doors open.

Can you find any kind of figure on how much money new legislation has denied Al Qaeda? The feds like to throw around the "denying terrorists income" to justify what their doing now, but what they've really done is gutted a good chunk of the Fourth Amendment. Anyone travelling with more than $10,000 dollars in cash can be legally stripped of their money without a trial, with even going through a kangaroo tax court. I am not, as Dave Barry would say, making this up. Anyone travelling with more than $10,000 in cash is automatically considered a possible terrorist and/or drug smuggler. They can strip you of your money in a public airport and you have no legal recourse to get your money back. (That this started with the "War" On Drugs, is something worth looking into, but has no relevent bearing at the moment) Also, in the "war against moving money around" the feds use their newly granted powers to move against banks and financial institutions that aren't part of the Federal Reserve. Specifically hallawahs, (I'm butchering the spelling, I'm sure), a sort of Underground Railroad used by various ethnic groups to transfer money either amongst themselves or to relatives out of the country. So, how many of their powers are actually being used against the terrorists and not as a tool of intimidation against Americans?

Adrian

I read that in the ever-reliable metro this morning. Better hope your not a regular at a few places or you could be walking the streets with 50 odd chips in you. I can see not having to hand over any cash or cards at the bar being a major danger…something you might only notice when you drag yourself along to the cash machine with a raging hang-over the next morning… I for one gauge how drunk I am by my ability to remove the right dosh from the old wallet or how successfully I can sign a switch slip so this system would probably be a killer… and how could you challenge them if stuff showed up on your bill you didn’t agree with?

Well, odd musing aside I think it’s pretty cool that some places are dragging themselves into the 21st century… but if we don’t have hover-boards by the time in 30 this whole “life” thing will have been a big waste of time.

to be honest ive never heard of bar soba in my life. i'm assumign it's up the west end. ruffians like myself aren't allowed in the west end

on the flip side. if you're in the dancing and you're really desperate for money ie want to drink more PLUS not have to walk home, it could come in hecca handy.

Sounds obvious, but imo that is not the problem. The problem is in any authentic democracy, anyone has the right to a judiciary defense. Innocent until proven (not suspected) guilty after a contradictory debate, so that one is sentenced for a real crime and in a fair proportion. That right is being thrown to the bin.

Would have been better for sure, though, again, the previous legislation made it possible for the info that 9/11 was going to happen reach GW's office days before the attacks, so Al Qaeda wasn't exactly able to move undetected.
Anyway about their finances: Do you need a legislation such as the Patriot Act to prevent money laundering in the US when the fiscal paradises aren't there?
The biggest money launderer in the US is the CIA (that manages the 1 trillion $ heroin and other drugs market in the US) and they launder through Wall Street (The last ten CIA bosses since Nixon are former Wall Street bankers or lawyers...). Noticed how fast the opium fields in Afghanistan were replanted after the fall of the Taliban? There's a cash flow that can't be stopped otherwise the debt becomes real. Money laundering is a savior for the US government, and it's been so since Jimmy Carter. The Patriot Act won't stop any of it even if it wanted to.

I'm not saying they should have crashed the planes down. I'm saying classic military routine wasn't respected on that very day, when intelligence new something was bound to happened.
Remember the golfer Payne Stewart that died in a private plane crash? His plane was of course no more then 10 minutes before two fighter planes were at his side. The 9/11 planes were out of course for 45 minutes.

I agree here. And don't worry about me, I protest. Hell, I'm French, that's what we do best.

I wasn't saying these organisation were over and done with, just that some of their members (and top ones too) are in prison for life. So it's not an impossible thing to do without touching everyone's freedoms.

And? Is that because of democratic laws or is it from close and secret negociations between Libya and the US (The same administration that wrote the Patriot Act)?

You nailed it. We don't have to accept it as it is though.

Ponrauil

the biggest problem I have with all of this is the idea that this legislaton is so the state can toss absolutely anyone in jail it likes which is so not the case.

Being brutal with ****ers that won't think twice about blowing up buses and flyign planes into buildings is a far cry from someone letting their dog shit in public.

Executive Order #9066--- 1942
Operation Keelhaul---- 1945


The old adage “A week is a long time in politics” springs to mind… Of course we should learn from history, but as I’ve already said several times, the countries in question are far more politically developed and stable nowadays. In the years you are talking about you would basically be treated like a second class citizen for being female, black or gay … except when it came to war-time and working back home… then suddenly every ethnic minority was welcome to fight and women were encouraged to do “men’s” work… Hell, my gran was amongst the first Scottish female joiners because of this.

Today you can’t legally discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, gender, orientation or belief system (Well, the last one is a bit dodgy but you get my drift). The western world does not accept huge numbers of body bags coming home from overseas without massive public outcry… you could not shoot conscientious objectors nowadays without swift revolution.

If I may borrow crash as an example at this juncture(hope you don’t mind crash ). Here is a guy that lives in the country that historically best exemplifies the regime you are alluding to. If we were living in the time of Executive Order #9066 I would say his life and nation’s political stabilities would be just a touch different from today… i.e. a completely different sodding unimaginable hell. Well, Crash has an ID card, he lives in the western country that has most recently been holistically altered by the face of Nazism, but is he worried about a recurrence? I doubt it… does anyone in Europe consider Germany a credible concern aside from their an overzealous appreciation of David Hasselhoff… No.

You can talk until you are blue in the face about the slow creeping erosion of public liberty until we wake up one morning and find ourselves in a police state but it’s not going to happen, and you know why? Pretty much because of inventions like the internet that allow fast, effective global communication… trying to stop people finding out what is happening in their own country and talking to likeminded disaffected individuals is equivalent to music companies trying to shut down P2P clients, you can’t. The Chinese are struggling and failing to keep control over what the populace are able to access and the seeds of resentment are becoming evident in many areas of their society.

Look at the outcry of the public over something like this whole patriot act deal, now this is something that as far as I can ascertain from the figures actually has a majority of public support, if this is how much fuss is kicked up by an angry minority can you imagine how much shit would hit the fan if the average Joe actually starts to be inconvenienced or honestly believes his quality of life is being impaired by the repressive state apparatus?

We have been educated by history, almost across the board industrially advanced nations reject any hint of fascism that presents itself in society… and at a more shallow level I think the overwhelming “dog eat dog” ethos of capitalism has resulted in most people in the western world being just too damn self-obsessed to let anyone tell them what to do... government or not.