All Americans at risk

Originally posted by Heratix

Originally posted by Nygdan
Why are you worried about 'Patiot 2" if it doesn't do any of the things the article claimed?

i am worried because if it is ANYWHERE near the truth then that itself is bad enough

so since it doesn't appear to be such, why worry?

..i also know that very similar is happening in this country...and imagine if
Yeah, that'd be terrible. Doesn't look like anything like that is being proposed tho.

if u protest they arrest u)

Since when?

..this is what happened to germany in the 30`s and 40`s

It was quite a bit more than that

..and its worse in this country [...]coz the only guns here are the illegal ones or the ones in the hands of the gov/military)..IMHO

The nazis removed guns from private citizens, in the us, the public has guns. Nothing like the 'White Roses' has happened in the US or is happening, and there are no laws on the books or being proposed that would allow any of what you are saying.

anit-federalist
the (UN)Patriot Act is not protecting liberty

How? Specifically.

The situation is worrying.

For more information, from an respectable source, see this link.

Good luck.

Heratix

I was so hoping that you would answer this question that I had posed earlier:

Tell me, doesn't Britain have their own version of the Patriot Act? It's called the Terrorism Act 2000. 117, or Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, I believe.

At least we here in the US are not required to obtain a license to WATCH TV. Yes folks, that's a fact - isn't it, Heratix?

Everyone with a television in the UK must have a TV license. If you own or rent a TV and do not have a license, you can be fined. The license fee varies according to what kind of TV you have (colour or black & white), and the money goes to support the BBC. Visit www.tv-l.co.uk or your post office for more information and a license application.

TV
They actually have guys with sensing wands in little vans driving around policing the airwaves.

Sorry for the tangent - I just found this to be an incredible concept.

@ Nygdan

You, quite obviuusly, are one of two peoples:

1) Pay no attention to the reports (not fabrications) of people getting arrested for protesting, taking pictures, reading books, etc.

2) Are American and ignorantly believe everything the gov tells you.

When I get my PC back up, I will find the articals of arrest I referr to and post them.

In the meantime, I suggest you do some looking on the net as to what is REALLY going on here.

Have you not ever wondered why the PA2 is being so hush hush?

Misfit

Originally posted by Misfit
1) Pay no attention to the reports (not fabrications) of people getting arrested for protesting, taking pictures, reading books, etc.

People have not been arrested for taking pictures or reading books or even protesting. Agreed, protestors have been arrested, like at the RNC, but the judges dropped the charges against all of them and didn't bring them to trial, and in either case they were not arrested for merely protesting. Some, for example, were arrested for protesting without a permit in central park. Protesting illegally was a crime long before patriot.

2) Are American and ignorantly believe everything the gov tells you.

What, pray tell, has the government told me? What sort of magical information do you have that allows you to see these laws that the american government isn't posting anywhere? And since the patriot II that this thread is about hasn't been passed, then no matter what provisions it has no one could possibly have been arrested for violating it. And, where in this supposed act are the things that the website talks about actually stated?

In the meantime, I suggest you do some looking on the net as to what is REALLY going on here.

How about you and everyone else babbling about these things do some looking up in the law books to find out what these laws say?

Have you not ever wondered why the PA2 is being so hush hush?

So hush hush that no one can see its text, but yet everyone 'knows' whats in it and can state as if it were fact that it does things like 'suspend habeas corpus'


If the things the website talks about were in some bill and voted in then yes, of course it would be a problem. Does anyone have access to the text? If its being kept secret, then it hasn't even been presented to the most preliminary stages of the law making process. And if its being kept a secret, then how can anyone pretend to know what it says? Outside of making leaps of faith and wildassed guesses?

Originally posted by Nygdan

So hush hush that no one can see its text, but yet everyone 'knows' whats in it and can state as if it were fact that it does things like 'suspend habeas corpus'

No one can see its text because there was much opposition to it. Then the proponents of the so called Patriot Act II (Attack of the clones) decided to present the changes in separate occasions instead of making it a block of changes in just one time.

Some of the things proposed were already voted, I think.

Go to Google and try search "Patriot act II" site:.gov or "Patriot act 2" site:.gov and you will get some pages about it, from government sites.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Heratix

I was so hoping that you would answer this question that I had posed earlier:

Tell me, doesn't Britain have their own version of the Patriot Act? It's called the Terrorism Act 2000. 117, or Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, I believe.

At least we here in the US are not required to obtain a license to WATCH TV. Yes folks, that's a fact - isn't it, Heratix?

Everyone with a television in the UK must have a TV license. If you own or rent a TV and do not have a license, you can be fined. The license fee varies according to what kind of TV you have (colour or black & white), and the money goes to support the BBC. Visit www.tv-l.co.uk or your post office for more information and a license application.

TV
They actually have guys with sensing wands in little vans driving around policing the airwaves.

Sorry for the tangent - I just found this to be an incredible concept.

u got it right m8..yes there is an anti terrorism act here thats my worry..they can impose laws whenever they choose(and if they chose to impose it..we could not even protest)..and yes m8..we have to have a license to watch tv..in fact its not TV u need a license for..its any equipment capable of receiving a signal(dvd players..video recorders..sky boxes)even computers with a TV card need a license

Here's what I googled for: "Patriot act 2" site:.gov
Here's what I got. There is a blog or something from an Independant Representative in Vermont. The rest seem to mention 'Patrio Act' and then a superscript notation '2' refering to a foot note. What sites have you been using? What portions have been passed that are like what the people in this thread have been saying?

Yes, Google is very good at making searches of what we do not want.
When I did the search, the page I used was on the first page of results, now is the last result of 5 pages.

The page I used was this hearing, and after that I went to the ACLU site.
This organization is not part of the US government, but if they participated at the hearing, I think they are recognised by the US government.

In this site I found this page, where they talk of the changes proposed, the current law and the status of the proposal, and I think that at least 1 has already passed the senate.

PS: I do not know much about US organisations, so if this is not a trusted source I apologise.

Originally posted by ArMaP
Yes, Google is very good at making searches of what we do not want.

Hey, how'd you find out their motto?

your first cite
Since we have seen deaths in abortion clinics in connection with illegal protests, I will be curious to see whether or not the threat of the death penalty for those who participate in such protests or conspire or attempt to do so will deter them from blocking or protesting access for fear that someone will go too far and death will result. I am also curious to see how far the conspiracy application will go; for example, will the Web master who develops information on the organization's Web site targeting the clinic and encouraging participation in the protest be subject to the death penalty as a co-conspirator? These things are not clear to me from the bill.

I don't know, sounds like they are more concered about harrasing people getting abortions than protecting anyone's civil liberties.

ok, this is too funny to pass, maybe this chairman is the one everyone is afraid of:
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your interest in this legislation. I look forward to continuing to work together on this important issue.

Mr. COBLE. You must have taken my admonition.

Mr. CARTER. I am scared to death of you, Mr. Chairman.

ok, moving on

Mr. Johnny Sutton; the United States attorney for the western district of Texas;
H.R. 2934 is important, because it will ensure that all terrorists who cause death in the course of their terroristic acts will be eligible for the death penalty if the facts warrant such a punishment. Under current law, some terrorist offenses that result in the death of American citizens do not provide for the death penalty or even for a sentence of life in prison as an available punishment. For example, a terrorist who is convicted of attacking a national defense installation, sabotaging a nuclear facility, or destroying a power plant cannot receive the death penalty, even if his crime results in mass casualties.

I really don't understand what the concern is for this bill since that is what it is designed to punish more strongly.

the second cite H.R. 3040 and S. 1606, �The Pretrial Detention and Lifetime Supervision of Terrorists Act of 2003,� allowing the government to deny bail without proving danger or flight risk for a laundry list of federal crimes said to be terrorism- related[4] (under current law, pretrial detention is available for all federal crimes, but a presumption of detention only applies to terrorism crimes if they are �acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries�);

So this act just does what, changes the rule so that if all the stages leading to a terrorist attack occur in the US then the person can be detained before trial? Doesn't seem particularly noxious, I have to wonder if the 'current law' allows citizens to be detained or if this one changes that.

a definition that applies not only to specific crimes of terrorism but also to any violation of federal or state law if it involves a dangerous act and is intended to influence government policy � a definition so broad it could cover some acts of civil disobedience by protest groups

ah, here is the real problem. I suppose it falls under the consideration of 'dangerous acts'. I can't see it really applying to or being applied to anything that wouldn't result in numerous deaths. So flag burning or protest marching wouldn't be dangerous, but gathering the materials for a bomb or putting poison in resevoirs would be. I really don't think that this could be used to do what everyone is saying it will; i.e. arresting protestors. Most of the concern seems to be that the more worrisome measures were taken out of the failed DSEA (aka Patriot II) and put into the VICTORY Act, but thats from a year ago and I don't see where it was voted on and passed, even tho "Senator Orrin Hatch will introduce the VICTORY Act this month. " (August 2003). Anyone been able to find out if it was passed? here is a propoported pdf of the text of the Victory Act, tho I haven't verified that.

It looks like the biggest legitimate complaint is comming from much of whats in VICTORY, namely the raising of the bar for rejecting wiretaps (ie throwing out illegally obtained wiretaps). The suggestion is that since it would be easier to use illegally obtained wiretaps, then there will be a greater tendency to illegally obtain them. I have to agree, but I also have to wonder at throwing out illegally obtained wiretaps that confirm such and such person(s) are involved in plotting actual acts of terrorism and mass murder. I don't think that the fed need be some neo-nazi monster in order to suggest that such evidence be used to convict these people, although again I do agree that its definitly got a potential for abuse. It does look like, however, that VICTORY and the other acts were allowing these uses only if they were for "narco-terrorist" convictions. IOW a protest group couldn't have illegally/improperly obtained wiretaps used against them if they were on trial for purposely protesting in prohibited areas, or crashing conventions and the like. Seems relatviely moot anyway since I don't think VICTORY passed.

PS: I do not know much about US organisations, so if this is not a trusted source I apologise.

Some would say that the ACLU is biased, I would say that sometimes it goes overboard with some things, but at least in those cases they err on the side of the public interest.

Originally posted by Britguy
The problem is that it gives the government carte blanche to change laws to suit itself whenever it likes. Simple dissent and speaking out against that government then becomes an arrestable offence and you are labelled a terrorist just for speaking of replacing them.

True dat. Our country has been about checks and balances. Where are the checks here?

Once again, I always seem to hear the augument mentioned above, but if I have done nothing wrong then what right does anyone else have to know who I am, where I am going, where I have been and how I got there? It becomes just another means of control and has absolutely nothing to do with security.

You're in security right? Who would you be more worried about, the guy sitting across the street scoping out your house, or the one right in front of it with a key? Much of our personal everything here in the US is based on our SS# right? That is supposed to stay with you, the govt. and financial institutions. Sure there are probably limitations, but by virtue of the fact that they have and keep that information, and they basically have the keys to your life right there. If you are worried about the level of access granted by the Patriot Act, don't be. They've had it all along, and I don't need the Patriot Act to tell me that. I think if I am going to be afraid of my privacy being breached, I should worry about the dude half-way around the globe who has my SS#?

-P