Obama signs Patriot Act extension

[qwe]

^ nice post. i can see both sides of the issue, but ultimately, ive always wanted to get the fuck out of dodge like you say. it just makes sense. we don't need an empire

we're such hypocrits, sending arms and expertise to insurgents in iran, just because we've already sent troops to too much foreign territory already and are stretched too thin to be able to have an actual war. so we do the dirty shit we've been doing this whole century, while at the same time continuing to denounce such dirty shit as "communist threats" that democracies don't do

 

[Heuristic]

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

How does Waco indicate that McVeigh was oppressed?

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.

But you're still missing the point: terrorist plots can be, and have been, detected. This reduces the frequency of successful terrorist attacks. The measures reauthorized in the Patriot Act--roving wiretaps for example--are instrumental to that purpose.

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.

The Middle East is a strategically vital region. The U.S. can't simply leave. The solution you're proposing is not only not simple; it's not possible.

So, since capitulation is out, that leaves us with one option: win.

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.

I suggested that the use of roving wiretaps in a terrorist investigation is perfectly acceptable. I said absolutely nothing about government being able to "catalogue every unique detail." The measures reauthorized don't come remotely close to that.

Do you think that 9/11 did not affect 99% of the American 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.

Americans don't care if one of their major cities is threatened by repeated terrorist attacks? There are 8 million people living inside NYC, and upwards of 20 million in the NYC metro area. When 9/11 occurred, aid and volunteers poured in from every corner of the country. Everyone was deeply affected. So you're simply incorrect.

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.

Which raw statistics are those? No one is being duped by being persuaded that there is a serious and ongoing threat of terrorism. That happens to be the case.

New passports have had chips in them for some time. And no, I don't have a problem with it. I don't even think the ACLU complained about that.

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

Uh, on 9/11 thousands of lives were lost and billions of dollars were lost. So, yes, it does.

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.

The suicide pilots on 9/11 didn't have to do any such thing.

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.

The ACLU's job is to advocate on the side of civil rights at every opportunity, and they do so. That doesn't always mean that they are correct. And it certainly doesn't mean that, because the ACLU is complaining, we must be headed towards fascism.

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.

Both measures reauthorized require court supervision and approval. There's nothing remotely unconstitutional about either measure--and indeed that is one reason why the ACLU is so annoyed. They realize that they have almost no chance of having the statutes struck down.

 

[SpiralOut]

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.

I think you're right on target here. You have PLENTY of money for roads, food stamps, etc. if you pull back our troops from all over the world and save a trillion dollars a year. You have a lot of extra money for people at home when you keep Congress and the Fed from doling out trillions of dollars to corrupt bankers.

There's really only two options for us at this point. Either we elect a Ron Paul type who massively reigns in the federal government and spending and changes the way we do things, or we continue to spend, spend, spend with money we don't have and this country goes completely broke. Then we don't have money for anything.

We need a paradigm shift in Washington badly.

 

[severely etarded]

But you're still missing the point: terrorist plots can be, and have been, detected. This reduces the frequency of successful terrorist attacks. The measures reauthorized in the Patriot Act--roving wiretaps for example--are instrumental to that purpose.

Terroristic plots were foiled prior to 9/11 and it is unknown how big of a role the patriot act has played since then. To believe the patriot act magically prevents all terroristic attacks is a fallacy.

The Middle East is a strategically vital region. The U.S. can't simply leave. The solution you're proposing is not only not simple; it's not possible.

Whats going to happen? Terrorists are going to win? Please. Give me a break. We should have never interfered with their politics. It's not the fault of the American people George bush is a war monger. We fucked up the middle east bad enough, we can't take back the actions of a former president. Sure there will be civil war if we leave, it's not our society's fault some greedy war mongers decided to invade Iraq. Instead of focusing on controlling the politics of foreign governments we need to focus on keeping terrorists from ENTERING the country. You're forgetting the hijackers were on the "no-fly" list, and that the only reason 9/11 happened was because our beaureacracy established to prevent such attacks FAILED. It wasn't that our system wasn't strict enough, but instead MULTIPLE safeguards already established were somehow breached. That's what is so alarming. We establish MORE safeguards and then what happens if they are breached AGAIN? I'll tell you, we will be left with even less civil rights and a lot of American blood on our hands, patriot act #2, and so on. When will we stop passing security measures and start being competent and accountable for what happens?

Uh, on 9/11 thousands of lives were lost and billions of dollars were lost. So, yes, it does.

Respectfully, with the cost of the war in Human casualties, both foreign AND American, AND financial cost, I think outweigh the benefits of the war, SEVERELY. We have killed over 350 children in Afghanistan. Good luck justifying killing children. Where do we draw the line? In American casualties ALONE, we have lost enough soldiers to equal two more 9/11 magnitude terrorist attacks, not to mention smaller scale attacks. Where do we draw the line? We're only 25 billion away from a trillion in financial cost. How many children do we need to kill? We are obviously losing Afghanistan, our choke hold is no longer working as record levels of "insurgents" are popping up. It's obvious, we have pissed them off even more. You don't spray water on a hornet's nest. From a strictly humanitarian level, we need to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. We should have got out a LONG time ago. Actually, we never should have went in.

 

[SpiralOut]

I like the way Ron Paul frames that debate since he was a doctor. When you have a patient and you make a wrong diagnosis, you don't keep feeding them the wrong meds because you made a mistake. You change your view and start doing what you can to actually fix the problem instead of just slapping a bandage on it.

 

[Heuristic]

Terroristic plots were foiled prior to 9/11 and it is unknown how big of a role the patriot act has played since then. To believe the patriot act magically prevents all terroristic attacks is a fallacy.

There's nothing magic about it. Make it easier to conduct terrorist investigations, and you will have more success in detecting terrorism.

Terrorist plots were of course discovered hundreds of years ago as well; that doesn't mean that we don't need wiretaps today.

Whats going to happen? Terrorists are going to win? Please. Give me a break. We should have never interfered with their politics. It's not the fault of the American people George bush is a war monger.

Invasion of Iraq: 2003.

Preceding 2003: 9/11, USS Cole, embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, AF barracks, and others.

But we did have US troops on Saudi soil. Why? Because there was a cease-fire with Iraq and Iraq had not yet fully met some of the most important terms. Because a US presence in the Middle East reduces the probability of nations there going to war with each other, and reduces the need of various nations to build up military power, which can inflame tensions in itself.

If the US were to leave completely at this point, I imagine that you would see civil war break out very quickly in Iraq, with Turkey annexing a large portion of Mosul/Kurdistan, and Iran and their proxies taking chunks out of various other portions. You'd have much greater likelihood of military conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, and between Syria and Israel. You'd leave room for other nations to take America's place in the Middle East, probably the Chinese, which presents a strategic threat in itself.

You'd dramatically drive up the cost of oil, with a crippling effect on the global economy.

So, yeah, bad idea.

We fucked up the middle east bad enough, we can't take back the actions of a former president. Sure there will be civil war if we leave, it's not our society's fault some greedy war mongers decided to invade Iraq. Instead of focusing on controlling the politics of foreign governments we need to focus on keeping terrorists from ENTERING the country.

Terrorism is not the only strategic concern of this country. If it were the world would be much simpler, but it's not.

You're forgetting the hijackers were on the "no-fly" list, and that the only reason 9/11 happened was because our beaureacracy established to prevent such attacks FAILED. It wasn't that our system wasn't strict enough, but instead MULTIPLE safeguards already established were somehow breached. That's what is so alarming. We establish MORE safeguards and then what happens if they are breached AGAIN? I'll tell you, we will be left with even less civil rights and a lot of American blood on our hands, patriot act #2, and so on. When will we stop passing security measures and start being competent and accountable for what happens?

Well, first, they weren't on a no-fly list. Few people were.

Second, yes, they did breach various safeguards. In any normal operation some elements will fail, and you must take that into account in your planning and design. You wish to deduce from "on 9/11 some security measures failed" that "additional security measures are useless." This is as logical as concluding that "since in plane crash A, some safety measures failed," "additional safety measures are useless."

Third, you want to prevent would-be terrorists from ever getting to the final point in their operation. You want to know about a 9/11 plot long before the operatives show up at the airport for the last flight.

Fourth, terrorist plots don't always require the terrorists to undergo the kind of security screening you would get at airports. In such cases, detection ahead of time is especially important.

Respectfully, with the cost of the war in Human casualties, both foreign AND American, AND financial cost, I think outweigh the benefits of the war, [...]

Not the issue. We're discussing the use of roving wiretaps in terrorist investigations, nothing more.

 

[severely etarded]

There's nothing magic about it. Make it easier to conduct terrorist investigations, and you will have more success in detecting terrorism.

Terrorist plots were of course discovered hundreds of years ago as well; that doesn't mean that we don't need wiretaps today.



Invasion of Iraq: 2003.

Preceding 2003: 9/11, USS Cole, embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, AF barracks, and others.

But we did have US troops on Saudi soil. Why? Because there was a cease-fire with Iraq and Iraq had not yet fully met some of the most important terms. Because a US presence in the Middle East reduces the probability of nations there going to war with each other, and reduces the need of various nations to build up military power, which can inflame tensions in itself.

If the US were to leave completely at this point, I imagine that you would see civil war break out very quickly in Iraq, with Turkey annexing a large portion of Mosul/Kurdistan, and Iran and their proxies taking chunks out of various other portions. You'd have much greater likelihood of military conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, and between Syria and Israel. You'd leave room for other nations to take America's place in the Middle East, probably the Chinese, which presents a strategic threat in itself.

You'd dramatically drive up the cost of oil, with a crippling effect on the global economy.

So, yeah, bad idea.



Terrorism is not the only strategic concern of this country. If it were the world would be much simpler, but it's not.



Well, first, they weren't on a no-fly list. Few people were.

Second, yes, they did breach various safeguards. In any normal operation some elements will fail, and you must take that into account in your planning and design. You wish to deduce from "on 9/11 some security measures failed" that "additional security measures are useless." This is as logical as concluding that "since in plane crash A, some safety measures failed," "additional safety measures are useless."

Third, you want to prevent would-be terrorists from ever getting to the final point in their operation. You want to know about a 9/11 plot long before the operatives show up at the airport for the last flight.

Fourth, terrorist plots don't always require the terrorists to undergo the kind of security screening you would get at airports. In such cases, detection ahead of time is especially important.



Not the issue. We're discussing the use of roving wiretaps in terrorist investigations, nothing more.

Okay Heuristic. Fair enough. How about this. In a republic that is "for the people, of the people, by the people," tell me how it's right that politicians in Washington are ignoring the wishes of the constuents is fair to society. Society is tired of hearing the same old promises and then having them broken. Tell me how this represents the people. There's no justification in ignoring society just because a president and his asvisors think it's the right thing to do. In a true democracy for the people, the government should be ran the way the people want, not what q group of a few lying dirty corporate sponsored criminals want. If another terrorist attack were to happen without the patriot act, then society can blame itself. But in a government by the people, right or wrong, what the majority of people feel should be done should be done, whether you like it or not.

 

[Free Radical]

sigh........

remember when we had civil liberties?

 

[Heuristic]

Okay Heuristic. Fair enough. How about this. In a republic that is "for the people, of the people, by the people," tell me how it's right that politicians in Washington are ignoring the wishes of the constuents is fair to society. Society is tired of hearing the same old promises and then having them broken. Tell me how this represents the people. There's no justification in ignoring society just because a president and his asvisors think it's the right thing to do. In a true democracy for the people, the government should be ran the way the people want, not what q group of a few lying dirty corporate sponsored criminals want. If another terrorist attack were to happen without the patriot act, then society can blame itself. But in a government by the people, right or wrong, what the majority of people feel should be done should be done, whether you like it or not.

We don't live in a direct democracy. We elect representatives, who vote on these matters. Our elected representatives voted, overwhelmingly, to renew the two provisions in question.

Further, I strongly suspect that if you polled the country and explained what the measures are, and then asked whether they were acceptable, most would say yes.

 

[severely etarded]

We don't live in a direct democracy. We elect representatives, who vote on these matters. Our elected representatives voted, overwhelmingly, to renew the two provisions in question.

So tell me how it makes it acceptable to make promises on one's campaign trail and then blatantly break them once elected?

Further, I strongly suspect that if you polled the country and explained what the measures are, and then asked whether they were acceptable, most would say yes.

Really? That's amazing. This was one of the key point's of Mr. Obama's campaign, and his stance was VERY clear. How did he get elected with such a solid stance against the Patriot Act, if most people are okay with it? Not saying it's not possible, but rather unlikely.

 

[thujone]

Not the issue. We're discussing the use of roving wiretaps in terrorist investigations, nothing more.

i would ask you to refer again to the point that these supposedly benevolent security measures are establishing the infrastructure for a system of surveillance that can easily be abused and used very effectively against the american public. the most recent example i can conjure of benevolent security measures being easily altered to victimize the general population would be nazi germany (oh how cliché... just like the future of america)

please see the ACLU's page regarding surveillance technology. if you think it reads like alarmist literature, consider that perhaps there does exist reason to be alarmed.

the U.S. is reverting to cold war mentality, only now the technology exists to fully realize the frightening potential of it. even worse is the fact that federal agents across all agencies are continually being trained to act as if though ALL civilians are enemies of the state. they are being authorized to use more and more force to quiet people and it's quite evident they are making use of that force. they are shutting down lawful demonstrations by preventing them from organizing. do you understand the weight of what that means? today it's shutting down protests and tasering unruly university kids, tomorrow it's locking people up and throwing away the key for having the audacity to talk back to an officer of the law. enjoy being irradiated by those airport scanners, by the way.

 

[Heuristic]

So tell me how it makes it acceptable to make promises on one's campaign trail and then blatantly break them once elected?

Your redress is to vote for someone else next time.

Really? That's amazing. This was one of the key point's of Mr. Obama's campaign, and his stance was VERY clear. How did he get elected with such a solid stance against the Patriot Act, if most people are okay with it? Not saying it's not possible, but rather unlikely.

Obama's stance on the Patriot Act was quite moderate, and he did NOT favor repealing the Act. See Factcheck

i would ask you to refer again to the point that these supposedly benevolent security measures are establishing the infrastructure for a system of surveillance that can easily be abused and used very effectively against the american public. the most recent example i can conjure of benevolent security measures being easily altered to victimize the general population would be nazi germany (oh how cliché... just like the future of america)

Look, comparing these two measures to Nazi Germany is nothing short of ridiculous. The measures do two things:

(1) They authorize roving wiretaps issued in the course of terrorism investigations, which are subject to ongoing judicial review and approval;

(2) They authorize the seizure of certain items with the use of National Security Letters, again subject to judicial oversight and approval.

That's it. Nothing else. At every step the process is reviewed by an independent court, who decides as to whether it falls within constitutional and statutory boundaries.

please see the ACLU's page regarding surveillance technology. if you think it reads like alarmist literature, consider that perhaps there does exist reason to be alarmed.

It is certainly interesting reading, but it has nothing to do with the two measures authorized.

the U.S. is reverting to cold war mentality, only now the technology exists to fully realize the frightening potential of it. even worse is the fact that federal agents across all agencies are continually being trained to act as if though ALL civilians are enemies of the state. they are being authorized to use more and more force to quiet people and it's quite evident they are making use of that force. they are shutting down lawful demonstrations by preventing them from organizing. do you understand the weight of what that means? today it's shutting down protests and tasering unruly university kids, tomorrow it's locking people up and throwing away the key for having the audacity to talk back to an officer of the law. enjoy being irradiated by those airport scanners, by the way.

I disagree with this, but before I say why, I just want to say again that the two measures reauthorized are certainly not evidence of this trend.

My reasons for disagreeing with the above:

1. Privacy protections are much more robust than they were for much of the Cold War, and there is far more judicial supervision than there was during much of the Cold War.

2. Freedom of speech protections haven't been scaled back in the slightest. The scenario you're painting doesn't have a snowflake's chance in hell of transpiring.

3. Federal agents are not taught to regard all citizens as enemies. Most of them cherish the freedoms of this country just as much as you do.