BS: On Renewing the 'Patriot' Act

Subject: BS: On Renewing the 'Patriot' Act
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 11:08 PM

The current Resident is now machinating to get people to support the renewal of the widely upsetting "Patriot Act"; he is arguing that it enables police to pursue terrorists and thus is a Good Thing.

The EFF and the ACLU think, instead, that it is a slip down the slope toward excessive governmental interference with citizens' freedoms and lives. Here is an Analysis of the Act by the Electronic Freedom Foundation for your enjoyment.

Don't get me started...


.

Subject: RE: BS: On Renewing the 'Patriot' Act
From: Strick
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 11:15 PM

In some ways the hints coming out of the 9/11 hearings suggest the Commission thinks parts of it should have been enacted sooner. Most of the "walls" within the FBI and CIA that have been held responsible preventing people from "connecting the dots" and preventing 9/11 were originally enacted to compensate for those agencies spying on private citizens.

What do we do if the 9/11 Commission's recommendations support much of what's in the Patriot Act? Then what?

Subject: RE: BS: On Renewing the 'Patriot' Act
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 11:28 PM

As with almost everything that COngress does, the roblem is one of correct focus of effort. Bundling all kinds of insanities into a single act which might ALSO have one or two postive traits, such as enabling real-time comunication between agencies, does not mean that the whole thing needs to stay monolithic. Let's end the madness...

A

Subject: RE: BS: On Renewing the 'Patriot' Act
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 11:42 PM

Here in China there is a nasty twist to being 'Patriotic' or 'Non Patriotic' too.

When Hong Kong was handed back to China it was agreed under a charter called 'One country, Two sytems'.

That charter specifically agreed that the Legislative Committe, the equivalent of HK's parliament would by 2008 have more seats directly elected. Currently the Chinese Govt has the major say in appointees and only 24 seat are direclty elected. This was to increase to 30.

A couple of weeks back the National People's Congress said that this would not now happen. Basically China stating that democracy would not be allowed to increase and put its yes men out of power.

Those HK politicians and ordinary people who have protested against this and other actions such as the proposed security bill (which was so loose anyone could be arrested on a number of very non specific charges) are now being branded as 'Unpatriotic'.

In the past recent history non patriots have been locked up, or sent to labour camps in very large numbers. In the cultural revolution thousands of non patriots were beaten to death during struggle meetings.

I have yet to hear Blair (who should be making a comment or two) or Bush even mention what is happening in HK.

The word patriot can mean many things to many people and politicians seem to be able to twist the meaning to their own ends.

Subject: RE: BS: On Renewing the 'Patriot' Act
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 12:17 AM

The Patriot Act promises security at the expense of freedom. It can't deliver the former; it can curtail the latter. It's too high a price to pay for a promise.

Subject: RE: BS: On Renewing the 'Patriot' Act
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 12:37 AM

It's been said that the Muslim extremists hate us because of our freedom. Our present administration is cleverly reducing that hatred by reducing its cause.

Subject: RE: BS: On Renewing the 'Patriot' Act
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 06:54 AM

So what is John Kerry's position on renewal of the Patriot Act?

Subject: RE: BS: On Renewing the 'Patriot' Act
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 09:23 AM

There are other ways that the FBI, CIA, and other initials can share information without the "Patriot" Act. For one thing, they can end their traditional Turf War and start sharing information, not only with each other but with local police agencies as well.

Only when everyone involved starts trusting each other -- and starts working for the good of the country instead of the good of their turf -- can problems be solved.

The 9/11 Commission isn't so much an exercise in solving problems as in pointing fingers. And if you're pointing your finger you can't solve the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: On Renewing the 'Patriot' Act
From: Strick
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 10:16 AM

"There are other ways that the FBI, CIA, and other initials can share information without the "Patriot" Act. For one thing, they can end their traditional Turf War and start sharing information, not only with each other but with local police agencies as well."

As I understand it, only part of the problem was the turf war issue. A good part of the lack of sharing resulted from attempts to prevent the kind of domestic spying we had during the Nixon years. On the other hand, there's the theory that turf wars are inevitable when prestige, budgets or egos are involved. Unless the FBI and CIA are replaced by robots, you're going to be dealing with ordinary human failings, right?

Subject: RE: BS: On Renewing the 'Patriot' Act
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 10:36 AM

Then perhaps we should replace them with robots who can comply with the standards of decency?

A

Subject: RE: BS: On Renewing the 'Patriot' Act
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 10:36 AM

I notice that no-one is answering Strick's question.

But as we have got onto the subject of "walls", here's an excerpt from a piece by Mark Steyn in the "Daily Telegraph" today:

"The only thing everyone seems to agree on is that counter-intelligence was severely hobbled by the so-called "wall" erected between the CIA and FBI. Who put up this "wall", or at any rate extended it several feet higher than previously? Why, former Clinton-era Deputy Attorney-General Jamie Gorelick. Has she testified before the Commission? Well, no, because she's on it. That would seem to be a prima facie conflict of interest. But instead she's huffing indignantly about being a victim of "partisan rancor". "Partisan rancour" is wholly improper unless directed at Bush and Ashcroft."

He also has quite a good line on the Iraq - Vietnam comparisonists.

"The only relevant Vietnamese comparison is this: then as now, for America it's a choice between victory or self-defeat."

The article was entitled, "Stop whimpering, we're in a battle."

Subject: RE: BS: On Renewing the 'Patriot' Act
From: Strick
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 10:37 AM

But who still won't be able to prevent an attack they weren't programmed for?

Subject: RE: BS: On Renewing the 'Patriot' Act
From: Strick
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 10:39 AM

"He also has quite a good line on the Iraq - Vietnam comparisonists."

Jamie is a "she" and the death threats prompted by calls for her to recuse herself were uncalled for (and criminal).

Subject: RE: BS: On Renewing the 'Patriot' Act
From: Nerd
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 10:43 AM

Oh, please, Kerry-bashers. He has been very clear where he stands on the Patriot Act. He wants it to expire and then to enact a new, saner set of anti-terrorism laws. He voted for the act precisely because it had a sunset clause and would expire.

Don't believe me? Here's what he says. (from johnkerry.com)


We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft.

That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time. I've been a District Attorney and I know that what law enforcement needs are real tools not restrictions on American's basic rights.

Much of what is in Patriot Act are good ideas. The Act increased penalties for terrorists, limited the statute of limitations for terrorist crimes, and allowed for greater prosecution of overseas acts against America. I fought to include important money laundering restrictions to clamp down on the cash flowing to terrorist enterprises. I had been pushing for these ideas since the late nineties – and after September 11th they were more important than ever.

I voted for the Patriot Act right after September 11th – convinced that – with a sunset clause – it was the right decision to make. It clearly wasn't a perfect bill – and it had a number of flaws – but this wasn't the time to haggle. It was the time to act.

But George Bush and John Ashcroft abused the spirit of national action after the terrorist attacks. They have used the Patriot Act in ways that were never intended and for reasons that have nothing to do with terrorism. That's why, as President, I will propose new anti-terrorism laws that advance the War on Terror while ending the assault on our basic rights.

Subject: RE: BS: On Renewing the 'Patriot' Act
From: Strick
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 10:51 AM

"So what is John Kerry's position on renewal of the Patriot Act?"

Gee, Nerd, what Kerry bashing? Reads like honest questions so far to me. Thanks for the info.

Don't be offended if I notice, like all campaign pronouncments, I'm not blaming him, it's a little short on how he intendeds to balance individual rights with the need to be intrusive to prevent futher attacks. Damn hard equation. Think about it, according to the 9/11 Commission, the very attempts to protect individual rights from the excesses of the Nixon years created the flaws that made us ineffective against 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: On Renewing the 'Patriot' Act
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 10:55 AM

Couldn't be much clearer,   I guess. Thanks, Nerd.

As for "stop whimpering, we're in a battle", that would make a lot of sense if it were true. But what brought the battle about is the very points about which we are lodging complaints. We are in an undeclared war and the fact is being used to manipulate all kinds of other aspects of existence in this country for the ocnvenience of vested interests. But it is not the same kind of battle as, say, Normandy.

A

Subject: RE: BS: On Renewing the 'Patriot' Act
From: Nerd
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 11:03 AM

Strick, if you didn't see GUEST's question for what it was (ie really the statement "Kerry supports the Patriot Act" phrased as though it were a request for information) then look at the "Meet the Press" thread (or is it "This Week?") where he/she simply comes out and makes the claim without the window-dressing of phrasing it as a question.

Of course, it MIGHT be a different GUEST, but I somehow don't think so.

Subject: RE: BS: On Renewing the 'Patriot' Act
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 11:06 AM

I don't know Amos - it's not the same kind of world that produced Normandy. We've been in lots of "undeclared" wars over the years. Even back into the Barbary Pirate wars of Tripoli fame. And America had comissioned ships in the 1700-1800s as privateers, basically pirates, to raid and pilage the English, French, and Spanish during our conquest of the continent.

And the Indian Wars were not declared. A lot of history that ends up in semantical debate. I still don't agree with our current conflagration in Iraq. The other side of me worries that if we don't stay the course and hand the country over to some form of government we'll end up being targeted even worse from those who would perceive that as weakness.

Just my .01 worth

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: On Renewing the 'Patriot' Act
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 11:07 AM

And the Patriot Act is a piece of trash from a secretive government. Anyone who opposes it gets my vote -

Sorry for the above thread creep - :-)

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: On Renewing the 'Patriot' Act
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 11:47 AM

I prefer looking at Kerry's actual record, rather than his campaign propaganda. Of course he is saying now that he is going to "reform" the Patriot Act. He had to say that to win the nomination and beat Howard Dean.

Looking at his voting record, it is difficult to see where he stands politically.

He voted for the Patriot Act, the No Child Left Behind Act and of course, the War in Iraq - all flagship Republican initiatives.
Yet he says he supports gun control and gay rights and opposes the death penalty.

His supporters say this points to a man who makes up his mind on the issues, not on party ideology. Caucus and primary voters flocked to Kerry's banner, but not, generally speaking, because they particularly liked his economic policy, or his foreign policy, or even his character. Democrats in those states, and across the country, supported and are supporting John Kerry because they consider him to be more "electable."

But for Kerry to be somehow "more electable" than Howard Dean, he had to be in a better position to make a strong case against Bush. And the simple fact is that he isn't, because he has voted with Bush on all the major legislation of the Bush presidency: No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act, and the Iraq war.

Thsse Bush initiatives are essentially the Bush record, and if we want to persuade the general public to fire its sitting president, we have to persuade that public that the Bush record is bad. The candidate that the Democratic Party needs is thus a candidate who provides a clear contrast with Bush on at least some of these issues, a candidate who has opposed Bush's bad ideas from the very beginning.

John Kerry is simply not that candidate; his positions on all those issues have been seriously compromised. He voted to authorize the war in Iraq, but opposed the first Gulf War and voted against funding our present occupation. He voted for the Patriot Act, even though today he calls it deeply flawed. He voted for No Child Left Behind, but now angrily denounces it on the campaign trail as well. On tax cuts he has the opposite problem: he voted against the tax cuts, but now wants to preserve pieces of them.

Are all these positions explainable? Of course. Senators are inevitably put into difficult positions when, at the end of the day, they are asked to vote either "yes" or "no" on issues that are never black and white. The war in Iraq, the tax cuts, the education bill and the Patriot Act are all enormously complex issues -- like most thinking Americans, Kerry supported elements of each, and didn't have the luxury of voting only for those elements that he supported. That's the hard life of a senator.

But maybe that's also why it's been 40 years since a senator ascended to the presidency -- the nuances of a Senate vote simply don't translate well into a 30-second sound bite. To people who take the time to examine the record, Kerry's votes are explainable, but Americans usually don't examine the record in an election year, and in a 30-second ad with scary music, Kerry's votes and statements look like egregious flip-flops. Armed with a $200 million war chest, Republicans will gleefully paint him as the quintessential Massachusetts liberal, a waffling and indecisive wimp pathetically incapable of taking on the Saddams and Osamas of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: On Renewing the 'Patriot' Act
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 12:12 PM

Eh? Strick,

Mark Steyn's article clearly indicates that "Jamie" is a she in three different places.

"He also has quite a good line on the Iraq - Vietnam comparisonists."

The "He" being referred to is the author of the article - Mark Steyn.

My reading of the quote from John F Kerry, Nerd is that he, as yet has not got the vaguest clue what he is going to do about it. His third and fourth paragraphs seem to indicate that he will keep the major parts of it and only slightly amend it.

Don't know where that will leave Steve (Norton 1) and his vote.

Subject: RE: BS: On Renewing the 'Patriot' Act
From: Strick
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 12:33 PM

Sorry, lost the train of thought in the thread,Teribus.

Nerd, even GUESTs are innocent of bashing until proven guilty. Wait for it.

Subject: RE: BS: On Renewing the 'Patriot' Act
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 02:12 PM

Good post GUEST - and as far as my vote - I am still ABB. I think someone above stated it quite eloquently when they said that the Senatorial record does not translate well into 30 second sound bites.

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: On Renewing the 'Patriot' Act
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 04:52 PM

Flip Flops, you say?

Who was against 'nation building' and now actively does it in Iraq?
Who was against budget deficits and now has a whopper of a deficit?
Who was for states' rights on gay marriage and now wants to alter the constitution?
Who wanted Osama, dead or alive, and now is, like, whatever?
Who wanted to fund 'First Responders' and now doesn't do it?
Who said 'No Child Left Behind' and now refuses to fund the program?
Who was against a 9/11 commission and then for it and now has practically derailed it?


(paraphrased from an article)

Subject: RE: BS: On Renewing the 'Patriot' Act
From: Strick
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 05:21 PM

OK, Nerd, the bashing's officially in full swing.

Subject: RE: BS: On Renewing the 'Patriot' Act
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 06:04 PM

LMAO - Too funny - maybe I'll write my wife's name in again. She'd be dandy to run this sheebang of a country!

Have a hoot -

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: On Renewing the 'Patriot' Act
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 08:07 PM

Here's an interesting essay against renewal on Wired magazine's web site.

A

Subject: RE: BS: On Renewing the 'Patriot' Act
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 07:58 AM

Personally, I don't need anyone to tell me WHY Patriot shouldn't be renewed. I need to know WHAT Kerry will put in it's place. I already know what Bush's position is. I need to know what Kerry's position is on renewing the act.

Kerry's propaganda says:

"That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time."

But doesn't say how Kerry's new law would protect us and our liberties at the same time, because it doesn't state what would be in his new law.

Then Kerry says:

"Much of what is in Patriot Act are good ideas."

So why does he want to let the act lapse and write a new one? And BTW, civil libertarians (including myself) disagree with this statement, period. We civil libertarians think the Patriot Act is a terrible law, and so John Kerry telling me that much of it is good isn't going to fly with me.

"I will propose new anti-terrorism laws that advance the War on Terror while ending the assault on our basic rights."

Again, if Kerry voted for this bill because it was "good enough" and says much of it is good, why do we need more anti-terrorism legislation? I think that in the wake of 9/11 that Congress passed way too much anti-terrorism legislation. I don't support the proposal of even more anti-terrorism legislation, because I want to see what has already been passed overturned, and the focus of our nation's attention put back on the issues that truly matter to we the people, and not the plutocrats running the nation into the ground.