Obama signs Patriot Act extension

[L2R]

IT ONLY TAKES 1 PERSON, LET ALONE 1% OF PEOPLE, TO KILL MANY MILLIONS.

erm.... no, that is impossible.

 

[Max Power]

So, because less than 1% of what is mined in the name of gold, isnt gold, we shouldnt mine for gold.

And because less than 1% of people are murderers, we shouldnt bother looking for them, or even making murder laws.

And because less than 1% of the world has HIV, we shouldnt bother looking for a cure.

IT ONLY TAKES 1 PERSON, LET ALONE 1% OF PEOPLE, TO KILL MANY MILLIONS.

Are you serious right now?

Do you realize how completely unrelated those example you gave are?

You might as well have thrown in something like

"And because less than 1% of twinkies taste funny, we shouldn't bother eating them?

And because less than 1% of midgets are named Jesus (HAY-zeus), we shouldn't make fun of them?"

Midgets, twinkies, gold, and HIV have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism or how to handle terrorism. Just because you threw in '1%' into each sentence doesn't mean they all of a sudden are correlated in any way.

If in that 'less than 1%' of people is a terrorist who was going to release anthrax all over a heavily populated area, and he is foiled because of this act existing, im pretty sure YOU arent going to be complaining, are you.

The process of finding and catching terrorists, criminals, gold, anything.. means that youve gotta look through people that arent terrorists. Of course we'd all love it if that wasnt the case, but terrorists arent walking aruond with 'im a terrorist' picket signs in there hand, now are they.

Alright so, how about the government starts monitoring every home in America with either an armed policeman or CC camera?

After all, you've gotta look through people that aren't terrorist to find them right?

And besides, if you've got nothing to hide what's the problem, right?

Go out to your local library and purchase a copy of 1984.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

 

[Bardeaux]

So, because less than 1% of what is mined in the name of gold, isnt gold, we shouldnt mine for gold.

And because less than 1% of people are murderers, we shouldnt bother looking for them, or even making murder laws.

And because less than 1% of the world has HIV, we shouldnt bother looking for a cure.

These analogies are grossly irrelevant to my point. At no point were the american people forced to give up civil liberties in order to find gold or a cure for HIV.

IT ONLY TAKES 1 PERSON, LET ALONE 1% OF PEOPLE, TO KILL MANY MILLIONS.

If in that 'less than 1%' of people is a terrorist who was going to release anthrax all over a heavily populated area, and he is foiled because of this act existing, im pretty sure YOU arent going to be complaining, are you.

The process of finding and catching terrorists, criminals, gold, anything.. means that youve gotta look through people that arent terrorists. Of course we'd all love it if that wasnt the case, but terrorists arent walking aruond with 'im a terrorist' picket signs in there hand, now are they.

Thats not even mentioning, the fact that neither you or i know how many % of the information gathered has anything to do with terrorism, they wouldnt release that information, and no doubt you got it out of some conspiracy magazine.

I was actually referring to how many terrorism cases that use evidence gathered under the patriot act there are vs. the number of non-terrorism related cases. In 2008 there were 3 cases involving terrorism out of 763 that were made possible via the patriot act. The feds are not using it to prosecute terrorists alone. This is an abuse of power on the part of the government.

Terrorism is going to occur with or without this invasive approach to security. Look at the botched attempt to blow up an airliner on christmas day, the Ft Hood shootings, the Virginia Tech massacre, ect. I think we are putting too much power into the hands of people who have no control over terrorism either way.

 

[moonyham]

Firstly, the gov wouldnt release information on any real terrorists that they have foiled. For obvious reasons.

Second, how the hell are you and your family going to enjoy 'civil liberties' if you are all dead?

Third, they are relevant, because my point was, just because something is so inefficient/rare that its in the 'less than 1%' mark, doesnt mean its any less important or needed. Like gold, or HIV cure, or catching murderers.

The problem with you guys is that i dont think you can fully realise what the US could be like, if it wasnt for all these agencies.. cia, fbi, nsa and so on.

I mean, is it going to take multiple bombings each week, every week, killing innocent people in malls and movies and other public places, for you to want these laws back in place? Is that how stupid you all are? Look at countries effected by rampant terrorism.. theres bombings weekly killing innocent people like you and me.. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT?

 

[Heuristic]

I was actually referring to how many terrorism cases that use evidence gathered under the patriot act there are vs. the number of non-terrorism related cases. In 2008 there were 3 cases involving terrorism out of 763 that were made possible via the patriot act. The feds are not using it to prosecute terrorists alone. This is an abuse of power on the part of the government.

This is inaccurate. The number to which you're referring (3/763) refers to the instances in which the DOJ made use of "sneak and peek" search warrants; it does not refer to the total number of cases which involved use of Patriot Act provisions. See DOJ Report on Use of Sneak and Peek Warrants

Sneak and peek warrants long predated the Patriot Act, and were and are used in ordinary criminal investigations; hence the high number of non-terrorist related cases in which these warrants were used.

The provisions that were to sunset and which Obama pushed to reauthorize involve roving wiretaps issued pursuant to FISA, and so specifically within terrorist or foreign intelligence related cases, and the use, I believe of NSLs to seize records in terrorist or foreign intelligence related cases. In other words, the provisions in question relate specifically to terrorism cases, not ordinary criminal cases.

Terrorism is going to occur with or without this invasive approach to security. Look at the botched attempt to blow up an airliner on christmas day, the Ft Hood shootings, the Virginia Tech massacre, ect. I think we are putting too much power into the hands of people who have no control over terrorism either way.

The question is never whether it will be possible for terrorism to occur, but rather how frequently and how destructively it will occur.

Counterterrorism has foiled a large number of plots that would have been quite destructive. But for counterterrorism actions, to list just a few, LAX airport would have been the subject of a powerful bombing, tunnels leading to New York City would have been bombed, airports in the NYC area would have been bombed, several airliners would have been destroyed, over both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, NYC subways would have been bombed, many federal buildings would have been bombed, certain bridges would have been bombed, etc etc etc.

So the fact is that counterterrorism can and does prevent a substantial number of terrorist attacks. The notion that it's something beyond our control is a false one, imho.

 

[juniortha3rd]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

unfortunately, our parents/grandparents generation cannot wrap their head around this quote. To them, safety and liberty are intertwined- you can't have one without the other.

this mentality of "they're terrorists because they hate our freedom" isn't going away anytime soon.

When Ron Paul said "they're terrorists because we're occupiers," you would have thought he was on the floor of Congress wearing a turban and holding a Koran the way the conservatives reacted.

God only knows how we'd react if another catastrophic attack occurred. Things could get downright UGLY.

 

[tobala]

God only knows how we'd react if another catastrophic attack occurred. Things could get downright UGLY.

Well that is likely quite on the minds of those behind the next "terrorist" attack. It's clear from the last one that the response from America's leaders was to snoop on its own people with agendas unrelated to "terrorism" rather than fight something that's almost impossible to be fought.

I mean, where's Bin Laden? Either dead from hoof-and-camel disease or still having a laugh at the USA's expense...

 

[thujone]

Crying wolf works sometimes only because there really are wolves.

In this case, the issue isn't whether there is a a threat, but whether the measures taken are worth whatever they accomplish in reducing that threat.

The sections I see referenced in the original article are pretty uncontroversial, imho.

Roving wiretaps simply enables a warrant to stay with the person targeted, rather than a particular phone. In a time of multiple prepaid cell-phones, this is just common sense. It doesn't weaken the threshold for obtaining a warrant in the first place.

Court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism investigations: key word is court-approved.

"Lone wolf" terrorist simply recognizes that an individual need not be part of a terrorist organization to be planning, and intent on executing, terrorist acts. Example of such an act: the anthrax mailings.

domestic terrorism occurs for the very same reason foreign agents resort to it; because people who have been fucked in the ass by the u.s. want revenge.

nobody will be made any safer by any amount of counter-measures, because enterprising terrorists will simply find ways around them. it's like having a windows operating system; you continually need to update because it takes half as long for hackers to crack a new fix as it did to patch the problem in the first place.

at the end of the day, the fact of the matter remains the same: those who are determined enough will find a way to complete their objectives. and yes, that logic also applies to any sort of crime, but i don't see anyone agreeing to have polygraph tests commited during a traffic stop in attempts to catch a local gangbanger.

so what makes the terrorist threat any different? just ONE thing: terrorism is sensational. some guy fails to light his underwear on fire and it's all you hear on the news for a week straight. why? because it could have been catastrophic. many could have died. even worse, many americans could have died.

the implications are clear; the government wants you to believe that americans are victims of a war (leaving out the fact that it's a war the government instigated, hence the use of terrorism, as terrorism is by nature is a tool for accomplishing political objectives) and that they are the only ones who can protect more innocent civilians from becoming casualties. well here's an idea: maybe terrorism does work.

why? well, since 9/11 more than ever before, americans have been questioning not the motives of the terrorists but the motives of the government. the country is on the precipice of becoming a fascist state, and it's already begun to visibly split into three groups: 1) people in charge, 2) those employed by the people in charge (i.e. federal agencies), 3) people who will continue to be victimized by the former 2 groups. if you're reading this and got thus far, it can be concluded with some level of certainty that you're in group number 3. and if history does repeat itself, you could soon find yourself considered incarcerated without trial as a political enemy of the state. considering this is already happening to more obviously radical americans, it won't be long before drug users and casual thought-provokers will be lumped into the same category as "enemy combatants."

and while i respect your opinion, Heuristic, it is common knowledge that eventually any freedom-restricting measure brought into place by any government at any point, no matter HOW benevolent the purpose seems at the outset, WILL eventually be used for subjucating the general population in a rather sinister fashion because as tobala pointed out in the paragraph he quoted: CONTROL is the government's primary purpose. acknowledging this, americans should be trying to bring the government BACK under the general population's control as it should bloody well be in any state that considers itself any sort of democracy.

 

[marsmellow]

Hey wait a minute... I thought that we "didn't need to make a false choice between freedom and security". Whatever happened to all that, Obama?

This was so predictable though. You could tell Obama was lying about his anti-terrorism policies even before he got elected. Back in 2008, he voted for that telecom immunity bill after he promised to filibuster it.

Is the military commissions act still around? I think that is actually a much bigger problem than the patriot act. I wonder if Obama will sign that too...

 

[Heuristic]

domestic terrorism occurs for the very same reason foreign agents resort to it; because people who have been fucked in the ass by the u.s. want revenge.

Sure, Tim McVeigh was really oppressed by the US.

nobody will be made any safer by any amount of counter-measures, because enterprising terrorists will simply find ways around them. it's like having a windows operating system; you continually need to update because it takes half as long for hackers to crack a new fix as it did to patch the problem in the first place.

I find this bizarre. On your view data which is well protected is no safer than data which is complete unprotected, because it is possible that even well protected data could be stolen?

What you're omitting is the importance of probability. It IS possible for either protected or unprotected data to be stolen. But it is less probable that protected data will be stolen. That's what counterterrorism, and antiterrorism, do: they weaken the probability of a terrorist attack.

Similarly, seatbelts and airbags and structural improvements to vehicles weaken the probability of dying in a crash; locks and security system weaken the probability of being burgled; a bank vault and security weaken the probability of a successful robbery occurring; and so forth.

All of those things remain possible. But lower probability means lower frequency. And the fact that you can lower probability at all means that you can have an effect on the occurrence.

so what makes the terrorist threat any different? just ONE thing: terrorism is sensational. some guy fails to light his underwear on fire and it's all you hear on the news for a week straight. why? because it could have been catastrophic. many could have died. even worse, many americans could have died.

Terrorism is something that can kill thousands and destroy billions of dollars in a single act. And understand that those billions of dollars don't simply represent money in wealth accounts: they represent jobs, financial security, food for families, and so forth.

the implications are clear; the government wants you to believe that americans are victims of a war (leaving out the fact that it's a war the government instigated, hence the use of terrorism, as terrorism is by nature is a tool for accomplishing political objectives) and that they are the only ones who can protect more innocent civilians from becoming casualties. well here's an idea: maybe terrorism does work.

I'm sorry Bin Laden objected to the US having troops in Saudi Arabia, but killing lots and lots of innocent people isn't the right way to go about changing that. Never mind that it's certainly not an act of war to have troops in Saudi Arabia, and never mind that Bin Laden's objectives are actually quite evil.

why? well, since 9/11 more than ever before, americans have been questioning not the motives of the terrorists but the motives of the government. the country is on the precipice of becoming a fascist state [...]

I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree. Fascist states don't protect civil rights as strongly as the US does, nor do they allow citizens to sue the government in court, allow independent courts to force the disclosure of information, and so forth. This is all very alarmist.

and while i respect your opinion, Heuristic, it is common knowledge that eventually any freedom-restricting measure brought into place by any government at any point, no matter HOW benevolent the purpose seems at the outset, WILL eventually be used for subjucating the general population in a rather sinister fashion because as tobala pointed out in the paragraph he quoted: CONTROL is the government's primary purpose.

Freedom-restricting measure: seatbelts requirement. Sinister use? Freedom-restricting measure: security checks at airports. Sinister use? Freedom-restricting measure: you can't abuse your children. Sinister use?

 

[severely etarded]

Terrorism is something that can kill thousands and destroy billions of dollars in a single act. And understand that those billions of dollars don't simply represent money in wealth accounts: they represent jobs, financial security, food for families, and so forth.

Fun Facts:
Cost to Date of War on Terror $975,000,000,000
US Military Death Toll: 6,372

# Victims lives taken on 9/11: 2,973

 

[moonyham]

Fun Facts:
Cost to Date of War on Terror $975,000,000,000
US Military Death Toll: 6,372

# Victims lives taken on 9/11: 2,973

Oh right, and there would be less death and destruction and money wasted if there was no one to stop terrorism, right? Yeah, right.

 

[SpiralOut]

This shit has been going on since the dawn of time. You get a better stranglehold on the populace when you scare the fuck out of them and they, in turn, let you do whatever the hell you want to keep them "safe."

9/11 happens. A few thousand people die. We react by starting several wars (without a declaration of war which is unconstitutional). We spend billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars. We add a massive, inefficient, and corrupt Department of Homeland Defense. And then we pass the Patriot Act which spies on Americans more than it spies on the cave dwelling idiots who flew a couple of planes into some buildings.

Wall Street goes hand in hand with Washington down this path of ruin and when it all goes to shit, they scare everyone by saying if we don't bail out these greedy corrupt fucking bankers our entire economy will collapse and we'll be seeing Martial Law and the return of the Stone Age.

Global warming and a host of other bullshit fear mongering can be lumped right in with all that.

Obama is a puppet for the ruling elite just like Dubya was. Just like the next President will be and the President after him and so on and so forth.

At this point it's just flat out comical how Barry isn't even trying to pretend to stick to what he said. Back in the day, politicians used to at least try and give SOME semblance of doing what they promised. Now it's say whatever the fuck you please and then do whatever the fuck you please afterward. I'm sure Barry will smile real big, chant CHANGE! at the drooling masses a few thousand times again, and be sworn in for another four years of fisting the American public.

 

[juniortha3rd]

I'm sure Barry will smile real big, chant CHANGE! at the drooling masses a few thousand times again, and be sworn in for another four years of fisting the American public.

How do you figure Obama will be re-elected? His presidential approval ratings look like they will surpass GWB's all time low within the next year or two. At this pace, the Republicans are practically guaranteed a victory in 2012.

The GOP knows what worked to get Obama elected in 2008. They'll elect their own Obama- an "outsider" running on the platform of "change" (think Rick Perry) and they will win handily.

might as well not even vote, fuck it

 

[Unbreakable]

Ron Pual would get my vote if i didn't loose that right when i got charged with a federal crime...So i spread the knowledge about his views to as many people as i can

 

[severely etarded]

Oh right, and there would be less death and destruction and money wasted if there was no one to stop terrorism, right? Yeah, right.

Actually yes. If we were to get out of the middle east and LEAVE THE MUSLIMS ALONE, MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, THEY WILL LEAVE US ALONE TOO? Just a thought. Remember, terrorists are "pissed off" people with a cause--A wrong and violent one. You would be very, very stupid to think there wouldn't be less terrorists around if we simply left them alone. Violence causes MORE violence. We just need to break the cycle of violence at this point. Instead of invading and occupying their countries, bombing the shit out of them, killing children, etc. (THINK ABOUT IT. INNOCENT CHILDREN. WHERE DO WE DRAW THE FUCKING LINE?), why don't we focus ONLY on airports and HOMELAND SECURITY, let the CIA do it's fucking job gathering foreign intelligence, and stop attacks like that. I wouldn't have a problem with body scanners at airports IF we stopped the war and kept all the troops here to protect us from the next possible attack, not on the other fucking side of the world. It's all special interest bull shit at TAXPAYER and US Military casualties expense...

 

[qwe]

Sure, Tim McVeigh was really oppressed by the US

i was gonna say you can't use one example and then apply it to all other cases of terrorism

but it turns out i don't have to. mcveigh's bombing was on the anniversary of Waco anyway

 

[qwe]

Ron Pual would get my vote if i didn't loose that right when i got charged with a federal crime...So i spread the knowledge about his views to as many people as i can

ron paul wouldn't be good. he's a great guy, great ideas to take from him, but his paradigm would do more harm than good if he was in office. i'd REALLY prefer to have these roads/schools maintained and staffed, people who need it to get foodstamps, etc

 

[severely etarded]

ron paul wouldn't be good. he's a great guy, great ideas to take from him, but his paradigm would do more harm than good if he was in office. i'd REALLY prefer to have these roads/schools maintained and staffed, people who need it to get foodstamps, etc

Honestly, I don't think he would have a problem with food stamps, roads, schools etc. It's the unnecessary spending he is more concerned about(I think). We need to get our budget in check or regardless of who's in charge. If we don't, such programs cannot and will not continue. That's why I still would vote for him.

 

[thujone]

What you're omitting is the importance of probability. It IS possible for either protected or unprotected data to be stolen. But it is less probable that protected data will be stolen. That's what counterterrorism, and antiterrorism, do: they weaken the probability of a terrorist attack.

...

All of those things remain possible. But lower probability means lower frequency. And the fact that you can lower probability at all means that you can have an effect on the occurrence.

you're missing one fact: it's far less likely for unprotected data that is not a target to be stolen than it is for the most protected data that is a target to be. anyway, such a comparison is besides the point. i'm all for traditional counter-terrorist measures that involve specialist teams responding to a threat.

the problem we have now is that the "terrorists" aren't threatening violence, but rather causing destruction without warning. the warnings came earlier, we just chose to ignore them and persisted in attempting to influence the middle east; an act seen as a soft christian crusade by the fervently anti-christian muslim population of that part of the world.

obviously, the simplest solution would have been to get the hell out of dodge instead of playing the bullheaded warrior who refuses to back down when taunted. it's no skin off the government's back to chase down all the so-called evil-doers, because american lives are expendable and people will forget about the unknown soldiers long before they will forget about which president was in office when the war in iraq was won, and sold as a patriotic victory for the american people.

politically speaking, terrorism is nothing but advantageous to the people already in charge. you seem to be suggesting that we go ahead and allow those people to have even more 'right' to stick their noses in our personal business and catalogue every unique detail about us in order to somehow protect us from a threat that really doesn't even affect 99% of the u.s. population. but, and this is the real goldmine, it could affect any of the population.

if new york city were the only target of terrorists, you can bet your ass nobody would wilfully agree to these tightened security measures across the whole country. but hey, may, could, and probability are good words for politicians to dupe the general public with. rather than publishing the raw statistics and letting people decide for themselves, they instead choose to spin all the news in an evil light so you start to consider whether america really is as unsafe as they suggest and are more open to the idea of a chip in your passport.

Terrorism is something that can kill thousands and destroy billions of dollars in a single act. And understand that those billions of dollars don't simply represent money in wealth accounts: they represent jobs, financial security, food for families, and so forth.

again, something that can. but as someone else has posted, the actual statistics don't indicate that it actually does. welcome to fearmongering 101.

I'm sorry Bin Laden objected to the US having troops in Saudi Arabia, but killing lots and lots of innocent people isn't the right way to go about changing that. Never mind that it's certainly not an act of war to have troops in Saudi Arabia, and never mind that Bin Laden's objectives are actually quite evil.

bin laden isn't the one forcing planes into buildings, innocent civilians who had to dig their dead families out of the rubble created by U.S. bombs are the ones that are most easily convinced to give up their lives to strike a blow at the devil that cast the first harm.

I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree. Fascist states don't protect civil rights as strongly as the US does, nor do they allow citizens to sue the government in court, allow independent courts to force the disclosure of information, and so forth. This is all very alarmist.

Freedom-restricting measure: seatbelts requirement. Sinister use? Freedom-restricting measure: security checks at airports. Sinister use? Freedom-restricting measure: you can't abuse your children. Sinister use?

hey, you know who does a great deal of protecting civil rights? the ACLU, and i'm sure they would not be issuing countless threat reports about these so-called security measures if it were really a nonissue. the point is not that america is a fascist state, the point is that all these measures are DRIVING america into the direction where it will be indistinguishable from a fascist state.

as i have mentioned, these "security checks" and other such excuses for the government agencies to see what we do in our private lives can (and historically have been) abused. while they seem benevolent at the moment, when you have enough of these measures in place all it needs is one corrupt megalomaniac at the top of the pyramid to decide america is to become a fascist state and hey, look, all the instruments to enforce it are already in place thanks to the wilful agreement of people like you in these so-called tough times.