Patriot Act being used against all people....

Of course, when it was passed, it was said quite long and loud that the Patriot Act would only be used against "terrorists"..... I guess they are considering all Americans to be terrorists now...

But then, didnt we really expect this???


U.S. Uses Terror Law to Pursue Crimes From Drugs to Swindling

WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 � The Bush administration, which calls the USA Patriot Act perhaps its most essential tool in fighting terrorists, has begun using the law with increasing frequency in many criminal investigations that have little or no connection to terrorism.


The government is using its expanded authority under the far-reaching law to investigate suspected drug traffickers, white-collar criminals, blackmailers, child pornographers, money launderers, spies and even corrupt foreign leaders, federal officials said.


Justice Department (news - web sites) officials say they are simply using all the tools now available to them to pursue criminals � terrorists or otherwise. But critics of the administration's antiterrorism tactics assert that such use of the law is evidence the administration has sold the American public a false bill of goods, using terrorism as a guise to pursue a broader law enforcement agenda.


Justice Department officials point out that they have employed their newfound powers in many instances against suspected terrorists. With the new law breaking down the wall between intelligence and criminal investigations, the Justice Department in February was able to bring terrorism-related charges against a Florida professor, for example, and it has used its expanded surveillance powers to move against several suspected terrorist cells.


But a new Justice Department report, given to members of Congress this month, also cites more than a dozen cases that are not directly related to terrorism in which federal authorities have used their expanded power to investigate individuals, initiate wiretaps and other surveillance, or seize millions in tainted assets.

news.yahoo.com.../nyt/20030927/ts_nyt/ususesterrorlawtopursuecrimesfromdrugstoswindling&printer=1

a clue DR research the 1972 prevention of Terrorism act (UK) to see how terrorist rules are put in place.

Now compare them to the Patriot Act. - there is a smoking gun.

Originally posted by Silk
a clue DR research the 1972 prevention of Terrorism act (UK) to see how terrorist rules are put in place.

Now compare them to the Patriot Act. - there is a smoking gun.

Indeed... there is something interesting... Both of them seem to be geared towards completely eliminating legistlative protections of personal freedom from the government... among other things...

Sounds like a government above the governments have been coordinating these things... *cough* Cabal *cough*...

Smoking gun indeed....

UK Terrorism Act 2000
New definition of "terrorism" can criminalise dissent and extra-parliamentary action



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After years of parliamentary opposition to the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, Labour in government has produced a new anti-terrorist law which is not only permanent but also broader in its scope and application than previous "emergency" and "temporary" legislation. The Terrorism Act 2000 received royal assent on 20 July and provisions relating to Northern Ireland came into immediate effect. The remainder of the Act will be implemented in early 2001.

The process began six years ago when the then Conservative government set up an "Inquiry into Legislation Against Terrorism", chaired by Lord Lloyd of Berwick. The Inquiry was asked to consider the need for counter-terrorist powers in the wake of the emerging Irish peace process and the likely decline in activity by the armed groups. It produced a two volume report in 1996 (Command Paper Cm 3420) (see Statewatch vol 7 no 1) which concluded that the UK required permanent anti-terrorist legislation to deal with internal and international threats, irrespective of the Irish situation. The Lloyd Report came up with a new legal definition of "terrorism" and considered a range of new and existing powers to form the basis of any future legislation. Each of these was looked at with respect to existing European Convention on Human Rights' jurisprudence, such as the Brogan ruling against seven-day detention. It is because the government wished to retain the power to detain and question people for up to seven days without charge that it entered a derogation from the Convention on grounds that the "life of the nation" was under threat. This notion, that the situation in Northern Ireland constituted such a threat, was last tested in the European Court of Human Rights in 1993 - the derogation was upheld. The Human Rights Act continues the derogation.

www.statewatch.org...

In Maryland we constantly have 50,000 outstanding warrants and the prison is filled %200 over capacity.

What good does this law do unless you can put Americans in government detention camps.

Well folks we will have to see where this goes. Prisons everywhere are all full up.

...even more reason to move to New Zealand bro...

hell man, i'd love to come to new zealand, if i were older i'd definately go there and get work and maybe some land. what can you tell me about employment over there? and other things you think are useful, if i come ever at all, it will be in 2oo6-7 time frame. i'm wanting to escape from america. it should be so easy, but they do keep an eye on the expatriots.

as for the patriot act. the full powers of this law have been far from recognised by the people. the question is, do we really want to wait til that happens to prove to the people it could be done. i'm going to look a bit closer at this law, find loopholes, and other things to use against it, as well as find bans on liberties, (not too hard a task i'd think) and figure out a way to translate that into a language we can all understand.

I wonder if this first quote would stand up in court. He did write a large part of the Constitution! Oh yeah, we don't use that old antique anymore do we?

"Whenever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." --Thomas
Jefferson: Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.

"It [is] inconsistent with the principles of civil liberty, and contrary to the natural rights of the other members of the society, that any body of men therein should have authority to enlarge their own powers... without restraint." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Allowance
Bill, 1778.

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.

So much for abiding by the founding father's intentions for the country. I wish Thomas Jefferson were around to help us now!

Originally posted by Silk
a clue DR research the 1972 prevention of Terrorism act (UK) to see how terrorist rules are put in place.
Now compare them to the Patriot Act. - there is a smoking gun.

Indeed, it even gives us an indication where the Bush Administration *truly* have their loyalties...After all, Bush has accepted Knighthood from the Royal Crown of England & I can't find anywhere if there's any indication that he had the prior approval of Congress to do so. The Constitution clearly states:
"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

So, does that make Bush a Traitor, according to the described definition in the Constitution, by having such a direct link to the ruling class of a foriegn power?

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer

Originally posted by Silk
a clue DR research the 1972 prevention of Terrorism act (UK) to see how terrorist rules are put in place.
Now compare them to the Patriot Act. - there is a smoking gun.

Indeed, it even gives us an indication where the Bush Administration *truly* have their loyalties...After all, Bush has accepted Knighthood from the Royal Crown of England & I can't find anywhere if there's any indication that he had the prior approval of Congress to do so. The Constitution clearly states:
"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

So, does that make Bush a Traitor, according to the described definition in the Constitution, by having such a direct link to the ruling class of a foriegn power?

It would certainly seem that way!

The purpose of that act was to prevent the leader of America from owing any allegiance to any foreign power that woud conflict with his duties and resposibilities to the American people.

yep. Welcome to reality. Our freedoms are sliping away.

This is really not a huge surprise.
Wise people knew there was more to it than most saw at first glance.
It opens the door to the end of democracy and life as we know it in the USA.