« Nuclear Deal Signed with India, American Diplomat Killed in Pakistan | Main | Advances in Automobile Technology : Safety »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83452455969e200d8347884f153ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Patriot Act Renewed by 89-11 Senate Vote. People with Common Sense are Not Surprised:

Comments

Jim,MtnViewCA,USA

I don't know a lot of details about the Act.
As I understand it, the Patriot Act allows the gov't to use against terrorists the tools they use against organized crime.
Are there exceptions to this? Or is this a good working def'n of what's involved?

GK

Jim,

The second link in the article describes the details of what the act is.

Yes, it allows the CIA and FBI to use methods to fight terrorists that were previously used against organized criems. It also lets different agencies share information, which might have prevented 9/11 if they could have done that before.

anon

please tell me this is a parody?

GK

Nope, it's dead serious. Anything that passes 89-11 in the Senate, after 4 years to think about it, is not a controversial issue for the mainstream, period. One can choose to be outside of the mainstream, but then should be honest about such.

dweeb

"Anything that passes 89-11 in the Senate, after 4 years to think about it, is not a controversial issue for NORMAL people, period"

THis is the most fashion sheep logic I've ever seen. The Senate is made up of POLITICIANS who vote based on any number of motivations. You're basically saying that if 89 senators jump off a bridge, we all should follow, because they're, well, senators, and they're, well, bipartisan. Seems that a bipartisan alliance is opposing it - when was the last time Bob Barr and the ACLU agreed on anything? Thus, your own argument turns against you.

Cites that Kerry and Rodham-Clinton voted for it mean nothing - last I checked, they weren't exactly libertarians.

If you want to change minds, you need to come up with something better than that. Also, the whole NORMAL people appeal is idiotic, too. What's NORMAL? That's a statistical concept. Statistically, NORMAL for high school seniors is to have experimented with drugs - do you want your kids to be NORMAL like that?

The PATRIOT Act has many reasonable arguments for and against it, but neither seem in evidence here.

Your challenge that someone come up with an alternative is easy - closing our southern border would do FAR more good than the Patriot Act.

For 70 years, a far better armed enemy, with thousands of WMD's and top-notch delivery systems wanted the USA off the map, but we survived - by the threat of overwhelming retaliation, not by moving our population into bomb shelters. The KGB made Al Quaeda's best look like the Girl Scouts in sophistication, yet we didn't need the Patriot Act to deal with that threat.

Certain provisions represent direct curtailment of our rights. The library and bookstore provision is particularly onerous. No, I can't give you an example because any uses of it are SECRET.

The National Security Letters are another major issue. These are not substantially different from the Writs of Assistance cited as one of the abuses of in the Declaration of Independence. Again, those receiving National Security Letters are not allowed to reveal this, so again, your example challenge is quite convenient.

I support only some parts of the Act, yet I could come up with far better arguments in support of it than anything you've offered here. Perhaps that's why anon thought it was a parody.

GK

dweeb,

You oppose something that got an 89-11 vote. It is safe to say you are far out of the mainstream. If all of them are wrong, as you say, maybe America is not the right country for you (although Britain and The Netherlands have implemented security measures far stricter than the US Patriot Act, BTW).

At least you support some provisions, but a claim that monitoring library records in order to track terrorists (who use the Internet from the library to avoid being traced), is onerous, is absurd.

Sure, closing the border would help. Why not do BOTH that and the Patriot Act? They are not mutually exclusive, you know.

So, answer these questions, if you think you are right :

1) If you oppose library monitoring, what is your alternative suggestion to track terrorists, who use the Internet from the library to communicate with their team members?

2) What should have Bush, Rice, etc. have done before 9/11, to prevent 9/11?

Very simple questions. Let's see what you say.

jeffolie

I support the Patriot Act, but just because I am feeling grumpy I am presenting an opposing point of view I copied.

GK

Thanks. I'll read that over the weekend as it is quite long.

I am interested in *reasonable* opposition viewpoints to it. But with the ACLU, their motives in relation to the safety of American people are questionable at best..

GK

Have you given further thought on the subtle yet influential activities of the fifth-column in America?

jeffolie

I am not knowlegeable on the size and scope of fifth columnist in America. I am aware that radical groups have used charities to gather money for terrorists. Some politicians are supportive of terrorists or useful tools for them. Here is an article:

First, Islamic "moderates" deny that groups like Hamas are terrorists.

Second, Islamic "moderates" deny that preachers and mobs chanting "Kill the Jews, butcher the Christians" should be seen by Americans as a threat.

Third, Islamic "moderates" do not oppose the extremists, but show solidarity with their extremist fellow Muslims; make excuses for them; bitterly denounce American journalists for publicizing the existence of these groups; and, most significantly, describe any attempt by America to defend itself from Islamic terrorism as an expression of "anti-Muslim" bias.

In making this last argument, the "moderates" on the Charlie Rose panel didn't seem to realize what they were revealing about themselves and the community they represent: If opposing Islamic terrorism is anti-Muslim, then Islam is indeed inseparable from terrorism. Alamoudi and his fellow "moderates" thus provided a more profound indictment of Islam than anything in Stephen Emerson's chilling documentary about the extremists.

The "moderate" Muslims' insistence that Americans must see nothing, say nothing and do nothing about Muslim terrorists in our midst should give us an idea of what life will be like in this country when Muslims achieve real political power here. Thanks to the Clintons in particular and the U.S. political establishment in general, and thanks most of all to America's suicidal immigration policy of the last 35 years, America's quickly growing population of Islamic "moderates" have already started to acquire such power.

KnightErrant

"This fifth-column comprises 8-10% of the US population, and we cannot win the War on Terror until we fight the enemy within. The Patriot Act is a strong tool to do this, as it is a lightning rod by which many Anti-Americans expose themselves. "

May I interpret you as saying you believe that the ultimate effect of the Patriot Act will be the arrest and imprisonment of 24 to 30 million Americans for treason?

GK

KnightErrant,

Not at all. What Ward Churchill does is not illegal by any means, nor is the publishing of Abu Ghraib photos 20 times on the cover of the NYT, nor is donating money to groups that defend terrorists in court. But it certainly is with the intent of undermining US security, and comprises of deliberate fifth column behavior.

Read the article. Opposing the Patriot Act, and the Iraq War, and any other anti-terror measures the US takes, while simultaneously excusing the violence of the terrorists, does reveal what side a person is on. They may not have broken the law, but are certainly contributing, either actively or passively, to inflict harm on America.

mark twain

"We teach them to take their patriotism at second-hand; to shout with the largest crowd without examining into the right or wrong of the matter--exactly as boys under monarchies are taught and have always been taught. We teach them to regard as traitors, and hold in aversion and contempt, such as do not shout with the crowd, and so here in our democracy we are cheering a thing which of all things is most foreign to it and out of place--the delivery of our political conscience into somebody else's keeping. This is patriotism on the Russian plan."

GK

mark twain,

Your lame and phony response is already anticipated as per the article. Theoretical statements like that tell us nothing about your principles, only answers to real-world questions do.

Answer two simple questions :

1) What are your alternative suggestions on how to stop terrorists from operating in America?

2) Why did it pass 89-11 in the Senate, with many Democrats voting for it, after having 4 years to think about it? Does this mean your opinion is greatly different from that of the American mainstream?

Answer these two questions, otherwise you will not convince anyone that you actually care about keeping Americans safe from terrorists.

petomai (twain)

Not trying to convince anyone, GK. Just a little quote from a true American genius to quicken the flow in your greymatter. Freedom of opinion is yours. Think of those words more as an invitation to reconsider.

Personally, I've found it wise not to get too deeply entrenched in any dogmatic position, right or left, as adherence to ideology is equivalent to intellectual death. Ideology numbs our faculties, gunks-up the machinery of reason. It is stuck thinking, thinking that is dead, claiming to know everything and refusing to learn anything. Again, right-wing and left-wing, Islamist and Christian Militant, Goebbelian Fascist and Trotskyite Communist, Freemarket Fundamentalist Libertarian and Anarcho-Syndicalist Punk.

Besides, dissent is the engine of democracy. It is good and healthy to countenance the counter-arguments to our own positions, to hear the admonitions, the old and hard-earned words. Lest we forget our fallibility. Lest we allow unmitigated emotion and dumb animal reactivity to get the better of us.

No?

No—we are above that sort of childish thinking, here.

That said, on to your questions. Firstly, they are not "simple" at all. They are, in fact, hugely complex and multivalent and just as geopolitically intimidating as they appear to be. They are questions that demand deep respect and heavy consideration, questions that are clearly without any simple, cure-all answer. So here, in my humble estimation, are a few tiny pieces of some tiny pieces to the answers.

1) Assume that your house is littered with rotten food, and consequentially teeming with cockroaches. While you’d just love to sit there with a can of Raid all day and kill the little creatures dead, one by one, savoring their last little twitches and slaking your thirst for revenge, probably the better idea is to clean up the rotten food and scrub out all the filth. If the environmental conditions invite cockroaches, the cockroaches will not stop coming, no matter how many of them you kill or how many roach hotels you erect. Even if you leave their bodies out, “as a warning to the others”.

So—how do I propose to stop terrorists operating in America? Begin by asking where these terrorists came from, and why. Then attempt to rectify the ill conditions that allow them to flourish. Find out why these terrorists are so deprived of social opportunity that they choose to be suicide bombers, find out why and how economic inequality has prevented the poor and uneducated from reaping the benefits of the natural resources extant on their very own land. Find out what it’s like to be occupied, to have, say, a Saudi military base next door to your house in Cleveland. Reconsider our absolute historical stonewalling of enactment of the international consensus on the Israel/Palestine dispute, a straw man argument though it may be. That is just for starters.

Basically, I am saying that we need change the conditions. And, if we stopped for a second to find out what these violent and blind fundamentalists have been on about all this time, maybe we would see that the best way to do this is probably not by invading and occupying Muslim countries, nor by abdicating the very philosophical foundations of the homegrown democracy we aim to protect.

Also, I am not afraid of terrorism in the first place. I was living in Washington, DC on the day of 9/11 (yeah, it was scary…Iraq is scary like that every day, and so are many other places in the world…and it didn’t make US too prone to diplomacy and peaceful reason), and have since resided in Los Angeles. I suppose I am just asking for it, but I do find it curious that the people who live in cities whose population are at significantly greater risk of suffering terrorist atrocities tend to oppose measures like USA PATRIOT ACT when it comes to “keeping them safe from terrorism”. Just a thought. I am, I also hasten to remind you, by no means a liberal.

The bare-bones reductionist reality of the situation is this: it only takes one individual to commit an act of terrorism, and global socioeconomic/geopolitical conditions being as they are, the supply of those individuals will be without end. We could monitor every last keystroke and thought of every person on earth for a thousand years and still not “defeat terrorism”. There will always be terrorists until the scales of economic opportunity are leveled worldwide.

2) Does this mean that my opinion is greatly different than the American mainstream? My initial answer is, I sure hope so. The day I find myself in intellectual lockstep with mainstream America (a great and noble country grown temporarily sick, both in spirit and in taste, the land of American Idol and processed food, anti-intellectualism, cheap pseudo-spiritual pageantry, myopia and militarism, savage aggression…a far cry from NYC in the 1920s, surely…) is the day Rick Santorum gets gay-married.

Even worse than that, though! Do you really believe that Congress represents anything more than the interests of capital? Really? Bodies swing from government to the private sector like pendulums, doing themselves expensive favors and reaping the rewards. 89-11? So what. Who gets the contract? Who gets the money? 89-11 means that war is a dangerous liability for politicians, the consequences of which nobody wants to own. It means that war is profitable.

Anyhow, I’m not into that whole ‘anticipating your response’ thing, but I’m only interested in hearing well-thought out responses to this lengthy slightly disorganized screed of mine, so save any critiques on long-windedness or ivory-tower whatever. Let’s think together. Let’s talk. Let’s figure this out.

Cheers

-P

GK

petomai,

1) I don't subscribe to your suggestion that poverty and lack of opportunity, coupled with American mistreatment of Muslims, is the reason for terrorism.

If that were the case, why the attacks in London, Madrid, Bali, Beslan, Jordan, Egypt, New Delhi, etc? None of these were directed at America, and some these were against other Muslims. 5 of the above 7 were not even in countries that are part of our Iraq coalition.

On the flip side, poor, unemployed people in Latin America, India or Southeast Asia are not committing any terrorism.

In fact, the 9/11 hijackers were not poor at all, but from upper-middle class families.

But I agree with you that we need to change these conditions. The establishment of a democracy in Iraq could be the first step in doing just that. Iraq now has a very fast-growing economy, even faster than that of China.

Plus, your point about urban people at greater risk being less worried does not mean they are giving this appropriate thought. Europe is at more danger from their demographic shift to Islam than America is (as seen in France, Denmark, etc.), yet they are less worried. That could be more an indication that they have lost an interest in preserving their society, and no longer want to make sacrifices for it. Their lack of interest in producing children is also an indicator of their apathy towards the long-term future of their society.

What is your response?

2) As flawed as our two-party system is, if one does not have faith in our elected representatives to respond to what their voters believe keeps them safe, then America may not be the best country for them. An 89-11 vote on something that the majority of the people want is not a controversy, period.

Patricularly when there is an active fifth-column operating in America, and much of the opposition to ANY measures the US takes in keeping Americans safe comes from this group. I am not saying you are part of this group by any means, but you have to admit that there are people in the US who are secretly cheering on *any* opposition to America, including one that conducts beheadings and suicide bombings. When they oppose both the Patriot Act and Iraq War so vehemently, yet refuse to offer alternative suggestions other than a claim that America somehow is getting what we deserve, that tells the remaining 90% of the population that such measures may actually be effective in pursuing America's best interests.

petomai

GK,

I think that the international spread of these attacks actually speaks precisely to my point. America, as you know, neither stands nor acts in a void. The arc of world economic order(of which the US is merely a centerpiece, even a figurehead, seeing as China could demand that we buy back all their US Treasury bonds whenver they see fit, and the whole thing would come tumbling down just like that) over the last forty or so years has bent, in stark contradiction of MLK's seminal words, towards injustice. Even the Project for a New American Century (in the 2001 paper Rebuilding America's Defenses) begins with the assumption that the progression of globalization entails an ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor. This, the PNAC admits, will cause resentment and armed resistance, necessitating the projection of US military power to quell any challenges to the status quo. So as power and wealth are more tightly centralized into developed nations, we begin to see a blurring between the actions of nation-states and multinational corporations, who become the prime geopolitical actors, and they-- like the terrorists-- are stateless.

Then we must think like a terrorist-- how does, say, an Arab terrorist strike back against this amorphous, stateless system that is the root of his grievance (on every level from cultural aversion to economic impovrishment to western hegemony to Israel/Palestine), that has a lock on his resources, and the full weight of the US military behind its enforcement? Well, there are two options. Either go nuclear or use terrorism/guerilla warfare. That's about it. Terrorism, as has oft been noted, is a tactic, not a philosophy. They are going to strike at local governments whom they believe to be complicit with the international powers (most Western, some, like India, not) that are, to their minds, pinning their country to their floor. They are going to strike at symbols and centers of Western economic dominance, from the WTC to the embassy next door. That is why they're international. Because their grievance is international. America is just the most obvious target

And again, not trying to defend it, just look at it objectively.

And while I understand that many terrorists are educated (and am acquainted with the intellectual lineage of educated terrorists like Ayman al-Zawahiri down from Sayyid Qutb and early Islamist thought), you are not going to find many educated people willing to kill themselves on public buses. No-- the dirty work must be done by the poor and the easily convinced. Terrorist leaders are nothing if not cynical.
And asa for the 9/11 hijackers, I hasten to remind you that six of the nineteen "hijackers" are still alive (this is a FACT, by the way, and by citing it I am not endorsing any inside-job theory. Just the obvious reality that the official 9/11 Commission Report is a hogwash from start to finish). Even the FBI has admitted that we can't prove these nineteen men did it. And that speaks to your point. These3 men WERE educated, and were therfore not used as suicide soldiers.

As for South America, what about the EZLN (the Zapatistas in Chiapas)? What about FARC (corrupt as they may be)? What about the rising alliance between Chavez (who is methodically buying up huge strategic resources in the region, consolidating a new sort of Western OPEC, and reaching out to poor constituencies in many Western nations with discounts on gasoline for the un-moneyed (notice that the US govt is investigating Citgo for its program of offering cheap gasoline to the American poor, rather than, say, Exxon, who is price-gouging the average working American into the floor).
So, while they are not suicide bombing, they are a much greater threat to American power, as they are politically legitimate with massive popular mandates, and with the aid of an ascendent China could well do us some serious damage.
Back to tactics again.

As for Europeans not interested in having kids, well, I think that this is more a function of class/standards of living than anything else. The American upper-class has very few children, also. And as far as preserving culture is concerned, I am an advocae of the futurist position posited by F.M. Esfandiary-- there are no immigrants, only irelevant borders. Culture needs to mix and mutate. It is how human society evolves as a whole, for good or ill.

2) 89-11 -wise, you and I are probably just going to have to disagree straight up on this one. I am entirely jaded by our federal government, but I know that the strength of America is that it can change. We can change it . That is precisely why it is the best place for me. Because it allows dissatisfied citizens to alter what irks them. Nor am I concerned about the existence or non-existence of any controversy regarding USA PATRIOT ACT. In my own estimation, it is still wrong and entirely contrary to the Constitution. I don't care if I'm the last one saying it, to me it's still true.

Not sure about fifth-column arguments, as I've not really read much on the matter. I'll dig around and get back at you on that one though.

Thanks for the thoughts,
-p

John

GK,

I'm wondering, why are you so obsessed with not being out of the mainstream? I attend symphony concerts, which I am sure is well out of the mainstream these days. So, if statistics are telling us the truth, is actually SAVING MONEY, as the country on a whole had a negative savings rate.

So WHAT if 89% of Senators voted for something? Why should you, I or anyone else base our opinions on how many people agree with us? Perhaps being outside of the mainstream is a reason for making quite sure you aren't totally losing your head, but you seem to essentially be using this 89% figure as an actual substantive argument, which, frankly, I do not understand in the slightest.

GK

John,

The huge margin of the vote exemplifies the degree to which the far-left is in opposition to the wishes of the majority of the US population. Even prominent Democratic Senators will not risk pandering to the far-left (which includes the fight-column left) and lose the bulk of their voters.

Most leftists insisted that the Patriot Act was passed the first time because Democrats read it in haste. Now, they have had four years, so that excuse does not hold water. The next step is to say 'they're all wrong'.

Now, if you oppose the Patriot Act, please answer the following two questions :

1) What are your alternative suggestions on how to stop terrorists from operating in America?

2) In your view, is terrorism merely a response to American mistreatment of Muslims, and it would go away if we changed our policies? In your answer, take into account the attacks in London, Madrid, Beslan, Bali, Amman, Egypt, and Delhi, which were not targeted at the US.

DB

I think it says quite alot about the people running this site that they name themselves after a turn of the century fascist movement. Look it up for the deluded neo-cons who refuse to believe. "futurism"
This is from their manifesto. Strike any cords with you devotees out there? Probably. But I bet you wouldn't admit it publicly.
"#9 We will glorify war—the world’s only hygiene—militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of freedom-bringers, beautiful ideas worth dying for, and scorn for woman.

#10 We will destroy the museums, libraries, academies of every kind, will fight moralism, feminism, every opportunistic or utilitarian cowardice."
F.T. Marinetti

GK

DB,

I noticed you cannot answer the two simple questions the article asks of people like you. This merely proves the point of the article.

1) What are your alternative suggestions on how to stop terrorists from operating in America?

2) In your view, is terrorism merely a response to American mistreatment of Muslims, and it would go away if we changed our policies? In your answer, take into account the attacks in London, Madrid, Beslan, Bali, Amman, Egypt, and Delhi, which were not targeted at the US.

NOE

typical of neo-con hacks, putting words in oppositions mouths to produce their paper tigers. My own view is that the Islamic fascists should indeed be dealt with harshly as they no freinds of a liberal democrat such as my self, at all. I made so such statement as you claimed in #2. The problem arises when extremists on "our side" erode the constition thus yeilding the same results. Many components of the patriot a ct are indeed common sense such as the cross linkage of info between agencies. However in matters of law it is exactly the hypotheticals that must be taken into account of any legislation. Otherwise Supreme court justices wouldn't bother arguing cases now would they? As for point #1 maybe you should ask a number of constitional lawyers for a workable answer that gives agencies the proper power they need without eroding our rights, and not an average citizen who has every right to be wary of making a "wartime" piece of legislation" (which historically tramples rights) permanent.

NOE

P.S. I'm still curious about your motivation behind naming yourselves Futurists though. What were you thinking?! Or finally honesty from a group of neo-cons?

petomai

DB:

while i am with you in spirit and cause in this thread, I feel obligated to point out the Futurist movement to which to refer (not to be confused with the contemporary futurist movement (of which I see no traces of ideologically anywhere on this site)) was an Art thing, and only satirically political. It was more or less a series of ridiculously hostile cookbooks and half-baked elaborate means of frightening and confusing people (a derivation of the manifest love of War for War's sake). They also hated spaghetti,a s a part of the same manifesto to which you refer. They were fascist, yes, but only in a very art-y way that had almost nothing to do with reality. FOr a real futurist, dig on F.M. Esfandiary.

cheers to you good sir
-p

ATS

Regarding the silly attempt to link this blog with fascism, see if you can deny that fascism was and is a socialist movement, just as totalitarian and repressive as its sibling communism -- which leftists like yourselves refuse to condemn or criticize.


NOE wrote:

"However in matters of law it is exactly the hypotheticals that must be taken into account of any legislation. Otherwise Supreme court justices wouldn't bother arguing cases now would they?"


Try saying it again, except this time make sense. Supreme Court justices don't "argue" cases before their own court.


NOE also said:

"As for point #1 ... the proper power they need without eroding our rights, and not an average citizen who has every right to be wary of making a 'wartime' piece of legislation' (which historically tramples rights) permanent."


Just another hysterical lie from a Bush-basher not meriting serious consideration. BACK UP YOUR CLAIM that any single person's rights have been or could be violated by the Patriot Act. Can't you Democrats find a single shred of evidence that the Bush administration is, has or even could have been violating people's civil liberties?

Or are bumper sticker slogans and the hope that nobody will ask you to back them up all you've got?


Also from NOE:

"typical of neo-con hacks, putting words in oppositions mouths to produce their paper tigers."


Well then, will you be the 'real' tiger and ANSWER THE QUESTION? You have a problem with the Patriot Act. Fine. So then, what's YOUR solution to the problem of terrorists among us trying to attack America? What would YOU rather your government to do to prevent future terrorist attacks against Americans?

You and the Democrats will not answer these serious questions because your goal is to bash Bush, not defend the country or fight Islamic fanatics trying to destroy America. If you disagree, then just answer the question. What is your left-wing alternative to being tough on terrorists and staying several steps ahead of them as the Patriot act allows the government to do?

So far, your leftie inability to form a coherent thought is why no sane American -- liberal or conservative -- takes your anti-Patriot Act hysteria seriously, and why you can look forward to many more election-year thrashings.

ATS

Petomai said:

"As for Europeans not interested in having kids, well, I think that this is more a function of class/standards of living than anything else. The American upper-class has very few children, also."

You're making the nonsensical claim that most Europeans are members of the "upper class". The declining trend in Europe's population began well before WWI and correlates to Europe's rejection of traditional Judeo-Christian values -- and its growing fascination with the dark and ugly side of humanity (as reflected in most European art and film).

Europeans would rather stay single or have abortions and gay marriages than reproduce, hence their need to import millions of unassimilatable and anti-Western Muslims to keep their crumbling socialist welfare states afloat. But for you that's not a bad thing, as it's precisely your dream for America.


"And as far as preserving culture is concerned, I am an advocae of the futurist position posited by F.M. Esfandiary-- there are no immigrants, only irelevant borders. Culture needs to mix and mutate. It is how human society evolves as a whole, for good or ill."

You'd prefer ill of course, because for you American values and strength are what's wrong with the world. You want American values of personal responsibility and heterosexuality indoctrinated out and replaced with the failed socialism and anti-family principles of the "upper class" Europeans you so admire.

America has always welcomed and absorbed legal immigrants willing to better themselves by working hard and contributing positively to society. Why is that not acceptable to you? You seem to be advocating unrestricted illegal immigration. Over 40% of the prison inmates in California are illegal immigrants. Why do you desire more of this?


" ... USA PATRIOT ACT. In my own estimation, it is still wrong and entirely contrary to the Constitution. I don't care if I'm the last one saying it, to me it's still true."

To you only those positions which weaken America's resolve and abilty to defend itself are "true". The desire to see America turned into an impoverished, authoritarian and socialist Third World country is the only consistent thread throughout your postings.

You oppose the Patriot Act not on the basis of facts but because opposing it fills an emotional need. The America which denies undeserved success to you and others lacking marketable skills must always be the in the wrong and the villain, hence you invent a mythology that excuses you from having to change and make something of yourself.

If you disagree with this, then once again, simply back up your claim with evidence and axamples that the Patriot Act violates any part of the Constitution, civil liberties, or any other laws.

onemansopinion

Let's sum up the Left's arguments against the Patriot Act:

"BUSH IS SPYING ON MEEEEEEEEEEE!
HALLIBURTON!
KARL ROOOOOOOOOOOVE!
THE ILLUMINATI! SKULL AND BONES!
BLACK HELICOPTERS EVERYWHERE!
WAR FOR OIL! BUSH LIED, KIDS DIED!
RACISM! HOMOPHOBIA!
RELIGIOUS RIGHT-WING THEOCRACY!
STOLEN ELECTION!
OH, IT WAS SOOOO MUCH BETTER WHEN CLINTON WAS PRESIDENT!
SAVE US, HILLARY! SAAAAAAVE US!
AIIIIIIEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!"

Yeah, that's pretty much what the "rational, tolerant progressives" have to say on this issue...

GK

onemansopinion,

You are right. Look at all the comments here, where leftists come by, parrot talking points that are already anticipated and debunked in the article, and then can't answer simple questions posed directly to them.

petomai

oooh...too bad. I was out of town for a week and didn't get to finish this fun discussion. It's probably too late for anyone to read this, but i'll give it a shot regardless:

GK! You sadden me...after failing to respond to any of my points you dismiss me as a 'leftist'? ATS is not worth responding to, but you? Even though we disagreed at least you were open to exchange. And now, me, put off for a 'leftist'! Sigh. The endless parade of strawmen...

GK

petomai,

Exactly what were your points? You talked a lot about the causes of terrorism (much of which I agree with), but didn't really offer a solution to confronting the dangers we face.

Plus, your claim that Europeans are more 'upper-class' than Americans is absurd. America has a higher per-capita income than France or Germany, yet Americans (even wealthy ones) produce many more children than Europeans. You are dead wrong on that one.

Regarding the Patriot Act, which part of the constitution does it violate? What alternatives do you suggest to monitoring and arresting terrorists operating on US soil?

BTW, why don't you respond to ATS? He seems to have put forth a very good dismantling of you.

petomai

Poor wording on my part...I didn't intend to claim any upper-classnedness on behalf of Europeans...what I meant to say was that, economic reality being as it is, it costs more and more money to raise children with a reasonable standard of living, even with both parents at work. Americans and Europeans are used to certain standard of living, and even the poorer among them have incredible advantages over the poor in, say, Afghanistan. My point is that both Americans and Europeans are accustomed (this should ring a bell for all you angry divorcees) to a particular lifestyle, however lower-middle class that lifestyle may be, and are frequently unwilling to compromise it and disadvantage their own children. How does a household with a combined income of under 100,000 US manage to put more than two (and even that is stretching it) children through college? Hell, a college degree doesn't even do it anymore...without a master's degree one is pretty much screwed for a decent job. And a decent job, I'll remind you, is the only way to survive in an American city of any size and cultural weight.
Also, the whole purity of culture argument stinks to high heaven. We wouldn't have algebra, for God's sake, without the Arabs (or Arabic numerals, for that matter). To think that the intermingling of cultures is somehow bad spits in the face of scientific and cultural progress, and is not even worth countenancing.

USA PATRIOT ACT violates this part of the Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The important point here is "but upon probable cause"...the nature of secret seizures and sneak-and-peaks is totally antithetical to this ammendment (particularly in regards to broad-spectrum data-mining operations which have no particular target save for free-floating packages of language). Case closed. And, again, I am not afraid of terrorists operating upon American soil. One either bites the bait or one doesn't. The world is no different today than it was on 9/10, and only those who were politically ignorant until this day are any more surprised or afraid than they were then. They should have been listening to bin Laden when he declared war on us in 1998. That was the time for fresh, unreasonable fear. It is long since passed. The world is an ugly, violent place, and no matter where you are you are subject to a bad turn of probability and a bomb going off in your face. I'd rather take my chances on the metro than allow the government to know what I'm reading. The gamble of living an independent life, I suppose. This is a simple Libertarian position (and a very right-wing one, at that).

As for ATS, good god...look at this garbage: "You'd prefer ill of course, because for you American values and strength are what's wrong with the world. You want American values of personal responsibility and heterosexuality indoctrinated out and replaced with the failed socialism and anti-family principles of the "upper class" Europeans you so admire."

Oh yeah? Is that what I'd prefer? You know me so well.
I don't take kindly to myopic extremists telling me what I think, particularly when they are gross simpletons who talk about ridculous constructs like 'anti-family principles'...
Honestly...and the idea that anywhere on this thread I have assumed a "left-wing" position is politically ignorant.

Everything I've written here is a thought from my own mind, no recitation of talking points or words put into the mouths of others. ATS's grandiose backwoods horeshit drags down the discourse and leaves us all a little worse off. (I say this after having worked for five years in DC, where even the staunchest "right-winger" wouldn't touch his idiotic proto-fascist (and racist, I might add) positions with a ten foot pole).

It's endlessly amusing to me that people scoop each other into camps of thought like 'leftist' and 'rightist'...they are helpful terms, but have NOTHING to do with how the world works. They are distractions from the money game, and if you can't get that through your head, you're already lost.

cheers,
-p

Lisa Gilliam

Thanks guys,I was getting really ticked by this halfwits insistence on not given a straight answer to a simple question especially one that is very serious such as national security.Since you airheads can't and refuse to give your solution on how to fight terrorism,I have two words for you maybe you have heard of them SHUT UP!I've had it with your mindless prattling!we don't need mindless pratttle when our very existence is at stake!

petomai

Hello, Lisa. You're right. Our existence is indeed at stake. The terrorist, however, are not the ones who threaten it. FISCAL INSOLVENCY is. FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY and WORTHLESS TREASURY BONDS whose tangential existence is a function of Chinese whim...yes, these are threats that face us. Can terrorist speed this process? Yes (particularly when oil is involved). However, a hundred dead here and a thousand dead there make little difference in the life or death of the larger country. No, what will kill us are the economic consequences of our fiscal irresponsibility. All true conservative principles have been abdicated by the federal government (actually, on this point, check out what Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, archconservative and chief architect of supply-side economics, or, in the common parlance, "Reaganomics", has to say about the Bush administration's hopeless profligacy and foolishness, both diplomatically and fiscally).

We are living-- literally-- on money borrowed from the Chinese, the Russians, the French, and the Germans, among others. You think about what that means and come to your own conclusions.

Our money is far better spent in increasing stateside production and indigenous economy, breaking the chains of neoclassical economics that erode the American middle-class (how is everyone's retirement plan feeling, by the way?) and plunge the global poor into desperation, disease, and violence. Better this than sinking our money into an unwinnable war and an indefensible data-mining operation on American citizens. To paraphrase Mohammad Ali, the greatest of all time, peace be upon him, ain't no al qaeda ever spy on my library card and tap my phone calls.

Engage these points, please, Lisa.

blessings,
-p

ATS

Petomai,

Please enlighten a "fascist simpleton" and answer the simple questions posed to you:

1.) You said you wanted open borders "for good or ill". America has always welcomed and absorbed legal immigrants willing to better themselves by working hard and contributing positively to society. Why is that not acceptable to you? You seem to be advocating unrestricted illegal immigration. Over 40% of the prison inmates in California are illegal immigrants. Why do you desire more of this?"

2.) You said the Patriot Act was violating the Constitution and civil liberties. Once again, simply back up your claim with EVIDENCE and EXAMPLES that the Patriot Act violates any part of the Constitution, civil liberties, or any other laws.

3.) If the Patriot Act is as terrible as you claim, then what would YOU want your government to do INSTEAD, in order to stop terrorists among us from attacking you and your fellow citizens.


Will you answer these questions and demonstrate that your criticisms of current policy are made in good faith, or, will you continue to avoid them and demonstrate the characterization of you as a frustrated anti-American is probably not far from the truth?

petomai

OK ATS, I'll bite...

1) To start with, tell me from what publication you get this 40% figure. Although secondly, who really cares, because the thinking person would ask themselves...why is it the U.S. interest to keep it thus? You can't tell me for a second that any country who can unilaterally invade a soveriegn nation on the other side of the world can't get rid of who it wants to when it wants to on its own soil. Please. The fact is, the PRISON INDUSTRY IS A HUGE LOBBY/SPECIAL INTEREST AND IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT (BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY THESE AND SIMILAR LOBBYSISTS) TO KEEP IT FULL. The prisons create jobs in economically depressed towns where there is no other work and the people are so poor and beaten down that they could really care less if a prison is dropped on their backyard. There are companies like Aramark who provide food to institutions, other compaines contracted to clean them and keep their records. The prisons must stay full because it is essential to our economy, and the easiest people to keep them full of are the most socially and economically disadvantaged, to wit: your aforementioned illegal immigrants and black youth. A man far wiser and more famous than myself once said: "Perhaps it is this multitude of laws which is responsible for this multitude of crimes."

So, to sum up: IT IS ALL ABOUT MONEY. IF YOU THINK ANYBODY IN GOVERNMENT CARES ABOUT YOUR IDEOLOGY, YOU ARE HOPELESSLY DELUDED. BELIEVE ME.

Also, I call for unrestricted immigration everywhere (not just USA) as a goal we may one day reach, with a great deal of vision and hard work.

2) Yes, I did. Read my posts. It's called the fourth ammendment and I quoted it directly.

3)Answered this one, too. Read my posts. In fact, I've answered EVERY SINGLE QUESTION, in numbers, no less, that has been asked of me. So get off it and engage my actual points. I want thought-out rebuttals.
Anyway, again, I'm not afraid of terrorism and I simply don't buy the boogeyman thing. It's been a mainstay of American foreign policy since the beginning, and it's there to distract you from the econommic realities that effect your life.

Frustrated? No, quite satisfied. As long as you are angry, I am satisfied.

Cheers, Idiot,
-p

ATS

Petomai,

1.) The statewide 40% figure is cited in the local broadcast news media when discussing the prison situation in California, and was recently repeated in connection with the prison violence in LA county between black and hispanic gangs. If for you the issue is only "money", taxpaying people pay billions every year for services provided to illegal immigrants such as emergency health care and education. Being on the low end of totem pole in terms of income and skills, this may not concern you.

2.) Exactly WHICH provision(s) of the Patiot Act violate the 4th Amendment? For decades the government has had the ability to do everything the Patriot Act allows against organized crime, and no Supreme Court case has overturned it. Why are you against the Patriot Act using the exact same legal powers to stop terrorists?

Numerous terrorist plots and cells have been stopped by the Patriot Act, including in Columbus, Los Angeles and Buffalo. Sane Americans realize this, which is why your side consistently loses national elections.

3.) There we have it. Despite 3000 murders on 9/11, a constant stream of threats from Al Qaeda, and the capture and breakup of terrorist cells in the US since then, you aren't worried about your country, your neighbors or your own life. Normal people do care for their lives and families, and do want terrorist murderers dead or in prison. Suicidal crybabies like you will always be upset by this. Thanks for admitting as much.

petomai

Almost, ATS. Not asingle "sleeper cell" captured in America has been convicted. The two in Lackawanna who had attended a training camp (one of whom quit in the middle, injured and unable to adapt to the lifestyle) had been monitored by the FBI for years and found to be kids with misplaced machismo and no follow-up. Check it out.

The sneak-and-peak search, through which the government is not obligated to inform a suspect of their actions until after the fact violates both the spirit and the letter of the fourth ammendment.

What is my income level, by the way? Ha. You're grand.

ATS

Petomai,

A terrorist named Pharis was caught making plans and materials to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge soon after 9/11. A Somali Muslim immigrant was stopped from blowing up a mall in downtown Columbus. Last year a cell in Los Angeles which planned to attack synogogues and US military facilities in the area was broken up. The Lakawana Arab youth had Al Qaeda terrorist training in Afghanistan in violation of US laws. The Patriot Act allowed law inforcement to act upon the information, which they could not before due to the Clinton-era wall of separation between intelligence and law enforcement which only the Patriot Act abolished. There are certainly other cases of successful thwarting of terrorists that the public will not know about.

With these successes and the steady barrage of Al Qaeda propaganda transmitted to America-hating jihadists around the world through Al Jazeera, only a committed anti-American could be as angry and unhappy as you are about these successes and the legal tools that made them possible.

Parrot the ACLU's nonsense all you like, the so-called "sneak and peek" provision is nothing new and already existed for the investigation of criminals -- a legal tool which the Supreme Court (the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution including the 4th amendment) has never abolished.

Why does the fact that the Patriot Act is actually stopping terrorists and making it much harder for terrorists to conspire and attack deepen your misery?

Fortunately, the vast majority of Americans don't share the suicidal mentality of an ostrich like you who denies that terrorism is even a problem, who isn't concerned that Islamofascists murdered 3000 Americans and tried to murder many more in the 1993 WTC attack, who doesn't care for his own life and his fellow citizens', and who denies the fact that terrorist plots have been thwarted here in the US thanks to the Patriot Act.

petomai

No no no no no...again...NONE OF THESE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF ANYTHING. The Buffalo youths ARE ALL CURRENTLY FREE. You are lying.

petomai

And also, I'm curious to know...you are aware that at least six of the so-called 9/11 hijackers are still alive, correct? Not saying I know what happened, but we don't even know who did 9/11. Fact fact fact fact fact. Even the director of the FBI says so.

ATS

Provide a link that proves that the Lakawana Arabs did NOT get terrorist training in Afghanistan from Al Qaeda. If you can't do that then you're the liar, not me.

Stop changing the subject to your looney 9/11 conspiracy theories. Admit it, you haven't one sensible argument to offer against the Patriot Act, other than the fact that you don't mind if the terrorists being stopped by it actually murder you or other Americans.

petomai

Nope...you're dodging my point. If you'll notice, I stated in my very first post on the matter that "The two in Lackawanna who had attended a training camp (one of whom quit in the middle, injured and unable to adapt to the lifestyle) had been monitored by the FBI for years and found to be kids with misplaced machismo and no follow-up.". So yeah, they went. They were subsequently (and legally) surveilled. They did nothing. Stop backtracking. We didn't stop anyone from doing anything, and we didn't need USA PATRIOT ACT to do it. My point was, no one has EVER been convicted of being in an al qaeda sleeper cell in the US.

2) Conspiracy theory? Wow. Well, since there is SO MUCH documentation on this, I'll just grab a few links and you can see for yourself.

a) BBC news, Sep. 23, 2001
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

b)The Guardian
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/september-eleven/hijackers-alive.htm

c)Flight 11:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers_flt_11.html


and blah blah blah...just look around and wake up.

And, my sensible argument, FOR THE THIRS time, is that USA PATRIOT ACT violates the Fourth Amendment. If you don't agree, fine. But it is a direct quotation and a valid reason. Just becuase the Democrats are spinless soft-right-wingers who are too afraid to pick up this ball and play doesn't change the truth of the matter.

blessings and bright flowers
-p

ATS

Petomai,

The subject matter is the Patriot Act and how you don't want terrorists stopped from slaughtering you.

You yourself admitted that the Lackawana Arabs had terrorist training in Afghanistan, which itself is a violation of federal anti-terrorism law. The only reason they "didn't do anything" with their weapons training and "machismo" is that they were caught, all thanks to the Patriot Act. The US Supreme Court upholds the provisions for terrorist surveilance in the Patriot Act. Only terrorists and their leftist sympathizers oppose it.


And why wait for a terrorist to come along and take you out of your misery? Have you even considered using razor blades or Drano? They seem to be more foolproof methods of killing yourself. Normal people are always grateful when suicidal morons eliminate themselves safely from the gene pool.

petomai

Besides a petulant refusal to admit that I am correct about NO ONE HAVING BEEN CONVICTED, what is your point? Your claim, I believe, was that we had stopped terrorists from acting, but seeing as none of them are locked up, one is pretty safe in assuming that we had nothing to lock them up for besides a bit of circumstantial evidence that amounted to nothing in the long run.

Since you have clearly lost this one as far as objective facts are concerned, you retreat to the "this post is about such-and-such" defense, when it was YOU YOURSELF who brought up the "sleeper cells"! Please. And then you tell me to kill myself? THIS, good sir, is why you are an idiot. Or, rather, a child who goes apoplectic when they can't have things their own way.

And the Guardian article? Well? You've got NOTHING but rhetoric.

may you live in interesting times,
-p

petomai

Oh and also...I am not a leftist. Not at all. If you wanted to call me anything, you could maybe get by with Libertarian, which, last I checked, was definitely on the right-hand side of stupid people's perceptions. There is not one position I have advocated that is incosistent with classical Burkean conservatism or modern Libertarian thought.
Where did you get your degree, by the way? (snicker)

GK

Petomai,

If the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment, and Senators had 4 years to ponder this, yet voted for it 89-11, why have you not written to your Senators about your concerns? Surely they would like to uphold the constitution if informed about a violation of it.

It seems odd that something that violates the constitution would pass with a bipartisan 89-11. The SCOTUS could overturn it too.

How certain are you of this being the case?

petomai

GK:

I'm not so sure that my Senators DO want to uphold the Constitution...given the fact that the spinless Congress abdicated their Constitutional power to declare war to the Excutive branch without so much as batting an eyelash. I think we've discussed this before, but I think that our Congress is rotten to the core (I mean, hell, the only one-- and I mean THE ONLY ONE-- who thinks for themself is Bernie Sanders from Vermont, and he's a goddamn socialist (in a red state!)!) and only interested in securing their next term, doing so by satiating the big-money interests that pay for their campaigns. To reference a popular story, we need to run the money-changers out of the temple.

SCOTUS, well, maybe they can do something about it, but it won't be until the partisan firestorm has died down a little, probably not before six years from now.
Anyway, I'm not frothing at the mouth about USA PATRIOT ACT...it simply concerns me when I see creeping threats to the privacy and freedoms of my fellow citizens. Sure, it's not affecting too many people just yet, but this is how dictatorships begin. Little laws here, little laws there...soon enough they will be confiscating our guns, as they may be used in furtherance of terrorist ends, or some such nonsense. Do you see what I'm saying? I just find it mind-blowing that a little bit of power has made so many conservatives abdicate the principles of fiscal responsibility, non-intervention, and individual liberty that defined a once-noble movement. I guess that is the story of history, but it is a sad one, and it it is up to vigilant Americans to protect themselves from government abuse. No one else will.

Best wishes,
-p

petomai

oops...i meant red county on the sanders reference, not red state...sorry!

GK

petomai,

OK, so small incrementalism in losing civil liberties, which are tolerated at first, is how dictatorships begin.

So tell me :

1) How come the same side of the political spectrum that is in favor of gun ownership rights also supports the Patriot Act?

2) Fear of what Islamic radicals might do prevents us from taking certain security measures, like airport screening of Islamic men.

US newspapers were afraid to publish some simple cartoons.

That people are afraid to even talk about it is a loss of civil liberties. Does that not bother you?

petomai

1) I think that politics is the last place to look for ideological consistency, as I've previously stated. I --and many others-- support gun ownership and oppose the USA PATRIOT ACT. I believe that this position is consistent with a small-government, individual-rights-centered mindset. Call it what you will. Moves made in DC are about money and power, not ideology.

2) I absolutely agree with you about the cartoons. We SHOULD have published them in every paper across the land. And your point about Christians is only half-right...the rabid Dominionists and Biblical literalists stateside are just as worrisome to me as the Islamists in the Mideast. While the mainstream of American Christians isn't prone to beheadings, the radical fringes are assuredly into things like stoning adulterers and other anachronisms that aim to sail us back into the pre-Enlightenment swamp of non-empirical, non-materialist thought. In fact, I think that there needs to be a far more aggressive critique of religion in general. Putting radical uncertainties of belief into political play can only have disastrous consequences, as evidenced by our current conflict and the absolutely ridiculous and time-wasting construct of the "culture war" here at home...anybody who's concerned about gay marriage in the face of imminent social and economic collapse frightens me more than the worst terrorist. They will be the death of us. Mark my words.

Cheers,
-p

petomai

And yes, it DOES bother me that people are afraid to discuss the motives and natures of religious belief. It bothers me very, very much.

petomai

I'm criticizing fundamentalists, not Christians. Any kind of fundamentalist is equally dangerous. A fundamentalist is a person who has abdicated their ability to think for themselves, and will not hesitate to commit any act seen as furthering their cause. As for Christian terrorist-- well, remember Northern Ireland?

And yes, I think that Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Jainism, Zoaroastrianism, Gnosticism, Rastafarianism, Flying Spaghetti Monster-ism, is all on an equal footing. While each may provide a valid moral and ethical framework for a person's life (and should be respected for so doing), they are not very frequently utilised as such. Every Christian, by definition, should be a pacifist, for instance. In fact, the good ones are (MLK as a shining example).

Not afraid of death, afraid of other people legislating my morality, particularly when they are self-righteous, intolerant, and opposed to science.

best
-p

GK

Petomai,

I don't recall the IRA conducting suicide bombings, stonings, or beheading people on videotape. They did bad things, but are you ranking them as equal to Al-Qaeda? Sounds like moral equivalence.

Plus, I certainly don't think Bush is anti-science. You said the GOP is pro-business. Well, business and science are intertwined (pharma, software, energy, etc.).

That alone proves that the 'anti-science' nonsense is bogus and contradictary to the pro-business slant that the GOP is accused of.

petomai

Suicide bombings, IEDs, laser-guided missiles...who cares? The medium is different but the end is the same-- the deaths of innocent civilians. And yes, anyone killing in the name of religion is equally as bad as al-qaeda. How could one say otherwise? Isn't that what we're angry at them for? Killing innocents in the name of their god?

And when I say anti-science, I am referring to the luddites who push for such absurdities as "intelligent design" and deny the worldwide consensus opinion of the scientific community on issues like global warming and the necessity of contraception to combat the global AIDS epidemic (particularly when it's on some half-cocked sexually-frustrated soapbox about people keeping it in their pants or whatever, as though it were any of their business). Which leads to your next point, the intersection of science and business. It is in the interest of many industries (most notably Big Oil) to keep legislation regulating emissions and environmental impact from ever passing. It's better for their profits. And the pharmaceutical industry? Price-gougers of the first and finest order. They support higher prices and patent lock-outs on drugs in the name of simple profits, keeping necessary medicine out of the hands of those who need it most (ie the poor (here is some Christian thinking for you, btw)).

So that issue is not so cut and dried. My main target was the Christian fundamentalists in our own nation who aim to undermine the scientific and materialist educational systems which allowed us to rise to technological supremacy in the first place. To say that proponents of "ID" are not anti-science is impossible.

petomai

Or, to refine the point about science/business-- business, as in everything else, is pro-science when it is in their monetary interest. The same can be said of both the Dems and the GOP.

GK

petomai,

Sure, those who push intelligent design may be Luddites. The same could be said of those who fear globalization and outsourcing.

And as far as killing innocents, surely you recognize that Al-Qaeda kills innocents DELIBERATELY, and tries to kill as many as possible. America has the power to kill millions in minutes, but instead go to great lengths to avoid killing innocents (even if it makes our task in Iraq harder). Deaths of innocents by America are accidental.

Frankly, America could just level the Sunni triangle in an hour and be done with it. Instead, we risk our own soldiers precisely because we don't want to become evil ourselves.

petomai

The globalization issue is tough. It really depends what sort of globalization one is talking about-- an open-bordered free-flowing exchange of people, technologies, and ideas is a wonderful thing, but the Friedman-esque globalization we're currently experiencing does little more than concentrate wealth and widen the gap between the rich and the poor (I mentioned this upthread, but the PNAC paper Rebuilding America's Defenses takes this increasing economic divide as a given, extrapolating from it that we must use military might to quell inevitable armed dissatisfaction), increasing the number of frustrated individuals with axes to grind and nothing to lose. It puts us, ultimately, in more danger. Although to get spooky about it, chances are, further down the road, that those of us in the middle and upper-middle class will find ourselves amongst these dissatisfied poor, and hence looking for whatever road back up we can find.

I definitely disagree with you on your claim that "deaths of innocents by America are accidental. They are limited, yes, but something like the Shock and Awe campaign in the early days of the war is by its very nature designed to, well, shock the civilians into losing their resolve to fight. This is accomplished by killing them in spectacular, media-friendly ways. Who were we killing, exactly, by bombing the city of Baghdad, besides civilians? I'm sure we got some soldiers, but still...and I don't mean to put down America on this front. What I mean to say is that war in both the twenty-first century and the second half of the twentieth, no matter who engages in it, is PRECISELY about killing civilians. The act of war, while occasionally necessary and basically genetically hardwired into all higher animals, is what is evil. Reaching the point where discourse fails is the evil, the failure of our nobler human virtues. There is no nation on earth with clean hands, and we need to stop the mythologizing not only of ourselves, but of others. It is only when we examine our flaws and shortcomings that we come to self-knowledge. We are not "good". We are not "evil". We are, all of us, a little bit of both. And if we delude ourselves into thinking that anybody is one or the other, we open ourselves up to atrocities of the worst kind.

cheers,
p

ATS

Petomai,

You are dead wrong. The Lackawanna Arab youth WERE convicted and ARE serving sentences for their crimes:

** http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/20/buffalo.terror/index.html


The 9/11 hijackers (which I didn't bring up - you did) are irrelevant to current use the Patriot Act which didn't exist on 9/11. Unsurprisingly, you're avoiding having to admit that the Patriot Act is actually working as it was intended and has kept America free of attacks for over 4 years.

You were given solid examples of the Patriot Act stopping terrorists and have avoided responding to them. The following news articles about the terrorists I mentioned contradict your lie that no terrorists captured through the Patiot Act have been convicted for their terrorist activities:

** http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/28/faris.hearing/index.html

** http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/terrorism.indictment/index.html

Also, about the terrorist plot broken up in Los Angeles last year:

** http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2920

As for your earlier claim that terrorists are not in America and not trying to take you out of the misery of living in a strong America which wants terrorists dead, take heart. Here is the testimony of the Lackawanna Muslim criminals themselves:

** http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/10/buffalo.terror.cell/index.html

And more information about other terrorists seeking to attack within th US and the various plots against the US stopped either within our borders or with the cooperation of foreign governments:

** http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/13/alqaeda.surveillance/index.html

** http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4697896.stm


Be sure to change the subject again and deny these facts.

ATS

Petomai,

You said earlier that you live in the Los Angeles area.

Now that you know that your home city has been a major terrorist bomb magnet at least 3 times in the recent past (the Library Tower, the millenium bomb plot targeting LAX, and the radical Islamic cell caught last year), instead of using the Patriot Act which you despise, realistically what do YOU want your government to do to stop such plots from occuring in the near future?

petomai

ATS:

Well, ha. Hats off to you then. Apparentlly my information on the convictions is faulty. I concede the wrongness of my position in regards to said stateside convictions.

Nonetheless, the devious plots of Lackawanna youths and the in-and-out of the mental hospital Faris don't scare me, either. I guess I learned to live with the fact long, long ago that many people want to punish us for whatever real or imagined reason.

Same goes for LA.

However, on a snarky note, this city is a total rotten shithole, anyway, so...No. I'll bite my tongue.

-p

Sri

Correction to GK, america doe s and has killed indicriminatley. Native Americans, 2plus million vietnamase is not collateral damage, 30,000 to 100,000 iraqis, not collateral damage. sure they can level the place but who will work for them in radioactive oil fields after that. Its one thing to defend the ideals of America its a stretch to defend occupying armies for not killing everybody.Thank you for killing all my family but sparing me. You are benevelont indeed.

ATS

Petomai,

WHO'S THE IDIOT NOW?

Well then, logically, now you must also admit that you're wrong to claim that the Patriot Act has not stopped terrorists, and you're wrong to say that terrorists are not actively seeking to murder Americans including you -- you yourself live in one of the radical Islamists' top targets.

Exactly how does someone walk around as embarrasingly ignorant as you are about the Lackawanna and other terrorists who were stopped here in the US since 9/11? Every news article I gave you was common knowledge.

In the future use more reliable sources of information than the looney ones you cited. Your article from "The Guardian" actually contains the following idiotic statement (capitalization and all):

"THE ARABS ARE NOT TO BLAME FOR THE WTC ATTACK."

Ok, so the 9/11 hijackers weren't Arabs. Then what were they? Bolivians? Swiss? Irish nuns in their 60's? Does deranged nonsense like this lower the source's credibility for you, even a little?

Or, if you still won't accept that the Patriot Act has done good for the country and saved American lives, then please answer my earlier question which I repeat here:

*** Living in Los Angeles, a major terrorist bombing target at least 3 times in the recent past, instead of using the Patriot Act which you dispise, realistically WHAT DO YOU WANT YOUR GOVERNMENT TO DO to stop such plots from occuring in the near future?

GK

Sri,

You are a shame-filled, fanatical anti-American.

America is the ONLY country noble enough to have rebuilt Germany and Japan after defeating them, and turning them into prosperous allies.

On the other hand, you have no problem with China killing its own people at Tianenmen Square, or Saddam using chemical weapons against his own people.

It appears your anti-American views are solely for the purpose of getting a pat on the head from the white liberals you worship. However, the majority of whites voted for Bush.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/voting_patterns_in_the_2004_elec.htm

So, your strategy of worshipping whites would be more successful as a Republican. Vocal white liberals are merely a vocal minority, and this caused you to misjudge the position you should take in order to increase the probability that whites will allow you to worship them (as left-wing Indians like yourself are compelled to do).

sri

gk*
you cant bait me with your bs.it may work with others.
Im aware of who i am, are you?
Love america all you want, in the end it has americans in it. all stripes. Kick us out that dont`t agree with your views then you are the
UNamerican.
see how that works?

sri

What you espouse is the same response as Tiananmen square only in america. You are the one that wants to round up 8-12% of all citizens. Opps did i catch you on that one.
Anyway i have to go now, my Jp girl friend wants to make love liberally. worship that:)

ATS

Sri,

This is a blog for serious discussion, not a support group for foreigners frustrated by their inability to adapt to the country they chose to immigrate to.

Please state for us concisely what point you are trying to make.

And, if America is so bad in your view, then tell us who is holding a gun to your head and not letting you return to your original country to wallow in its filth and squalor?

sri

Im not saying its so bad, there are good/bad people everywhere you go. but
its not god`s chosen land as you seem to think it is, especially when people of your views want to eliminate any dissenting views. There is plenty of filth to go around as i can see on this blog. It seems that anyone that opposes your public pov has to go elsewhere.the filthy majority no longer support your dementia for this admin. Thats obvious by all polls.
FYI i don`t even live in the US. I`m just watching the place fall apartfrom afar, and people like you hoping to get ajob in the SS. History in motion.
I can tell from your posts that you can`t debate without bashing and name calling as if that impresses anyone. So i will leave you to your anger management therapy. Atleast you are just blogging, basically harmless. Thank you for the entertainment. You are a fine american. Now how come you haven`t signed up for military service? come on be a real patriot. got ya again didnt i?
KMBA

ATS

Sri,

Who is stopping you or anyone else from speaking their mind?

Lying ignoramuses like Petomai (above) are routinely exposed on this blog, and the truth is brought to light. That is the spirit of free speech and debate. Whether you have only childish whimpering to offer, or intelligent points and facts, people will treat your contributions accordingly.

So, please tell us, exactly what is so negative about America that you say it's "falling apart", while you choose not to single out, for example, a genocidal Sudan, a maniacal Iran, or an insane North Korea for criticism?

GK

Look at sri, so frustrated that years of trying to get white liberals to take him seriously has still borne no fruit.

All he can say is 'America is falling aprt' without being more specific than that. Now, he learns that even India is pro-US, and is frustrated further still...


And as far as 'dissenting views', you should be able to answer simple questions if your 'views' are taken to be anything other than low-IQ parroting of what you hope white liberals will approve of.

Answer the question :

1) Which country in the world has benefited humanity more than the US?

Should be simple enough for even you to answer.

Ravi

Sri,

It seems funny that someone who doesn't even live in the US is so obsessed with it. What position are you in to even say America is 'falling apart' when you don't live here? What economic data do you have to prove this?

Grow a brain, kalia.

sri

watch the economic indicators. Debt for one.
You can`t dig yourself out of it. Your housing bubble is collapsing. Your health care is too expensive for avg. income, your public schools are low grade, military is over stretched and bloated, you are fighting an unjust(opinion)war in which you are the agressor nation based on fabrications, increasingly unpopular,
you are spending beyond your means, your president is a c grade puppet(YALE?), a village idiot, the nation is being run like an enron, fed is printing money left and right, the dollar will be devalued(30% already in 5 years), 1700plus arrests at the RNC in 2004, your VP mistakes his friend for a bird(just comical),GM going bankrupt, Fannie mae 11billion$ scandal,2mil prison pop. and growing,
accout defecit is 7% of gdp, 2-3Billion $/day are needed from foreign sources
to finance your defecit,
I could keep going on but whats the point? If you point out some problems then you are called an american hating liberal white worshiping blah blah blah. which is fine, The reason I am "obsessed" is I am a citizen of the empire.
America is an empire, the largest and what happens here has major consequences
everywhere. Especially since your congress has abdicated its powers to the executive branch, 2 hot wars in session, possibly three with iran, oil market instability which leads major financial volatility etc etc. i could go on an on but im just a blah blah.
English is not my first language, so excuse my lack of eloquence, &kiss my brown ass. Im out of here so say what you will you
wannabe patriots, go join the military if you have the guts. I like mine in my stomach not on some roadside. tata
ass

ATS

Sri,

Your hysterical nonsense seems to explain why you were an utter failure here in America and had to flee this country wherein every person rises or falls due only to his own skills and merits -- or lack thereof, as it would seem your case.

Could you simply respond the question offered to you by GK:

*** Which country in the world has done more and sacrificed more for the good of humanity than the United States?

sri

ATS, working overseas requires an additional language on top of the skills for your profession at the very least. Americans can`t hack it, thats why the imported talent.As for meritocracy you must be deaf dumb and blind. You think dubya got to where he is because of merit? too funny, You think he got into yale because of SAT scores, silly eh. PapaBush now i can agree, dubya,please,meritocracy?.
I dont understand why this blog trys to bait with liberal this and that.
Everything I have said so far can be found on The American Conservative Magazine. These are the real conservatives, you guys are fools following the neo con pied pipers.
Just check out the magazine archives, you will see where im coming from.
Here are just a couple of articels available from this issue.

An Empire Built of Paper
By Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.
Empire of Debt: The Rise of an Epic Financial Crisis by William Bonner and Addison Wiggin

Counterfeit Conservative
By Doug Bandow
Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy by Bruce Bartlett ,


You can take your sacrifice and good of humanity &shove it up your ass.
Goahead join the military and put your money where your mouth is.
I have no idea what is good for humanity but i sure dont trust the current admin. for knowing it either.
Read the American Conservative Magazine, I dont agree with everything there but it`s a good middle of the road read.

ATS

Sri,

By all means, keep changing the subject to your incoherent tirade over the social and financial failure you were in America. Keep avoiding the simplest question imaginable regarding your anti-American views. Here again:

*** If America is such a bad country, just tell us which country or countries have done more and sacrificed more for the good of humanity than the United States? (Define "good", "sacrifice", etc. any way you like.)


Also, are you revealing your true passions with your frequent anal references? Or is that the reason you flunked out of life in America, now reducing yourself to deficating on it from afar amidst the filth and corruption of your place of origin?

GK

Sri,

You can't answer a simple question, yet claim Americas are dumb??? ***Name a country that has done more to benefit humanity than the US.*** You lack of response proves that even you admit that America has done the most, among any country.

Plus, you don't even live here (because, as ATS said, you failed in a merit-based system), yet you while about the US military, and your biggest dream is for white liberals give you a pat on the head for parroting what they tell you to.

'Papa Bush' wasn't even famous when W. went to Yale (late 1960s). His GPA was higher than John Kerry's at Yale. Plus, why didn't all of 'Papa Bush's' other children also rise to that level? Why just one son?

It seems your backward mind thinks ONLY of Indian-stype nepotism, more proof of your aversion to meritocracy, and how the pro-US direction India is moving in is a cause of great misery for you.

Anyway, India is the most pro-Bush country in the world. You are a misfit even in India...tee hee.

And now you talk of reading The American Conservative? This is ONLY because I showed you that more white people are conservative than liberal. After learning that, you immediately changed course in your strategy to gain the approval of whites...... pathetic. You still think you can spout Pinko propaganda, yet claim the America Conservative agrees with you? White's will never approve of you that way - you will have to work much harder than that.

Ravi

Sri...... You didn't provide any back up to your claim that America is 'falling apart'. Why so obsessed with a country you don't even live in?

You are a black-skinned hijra, and also a disease-laden faggot. It is people like you who kept India poor and backward for so long.

bob

THE PATRIOT ACT WAS CHANGED. THAT IS WHY CRITICISM RELENTED.

This is crazy. How can anyone not know that?

• Recipients of secret court orders to turn over sensitive information on individuals linked to terrorism investigations are not allowed to disclose those orders but can challenge the gag order after a year.

• Libraries, including those that offer Internet access, would not be required to turn over information without the approval of a judge.

• Recipients of an FBI "national security letter" — an investigator's demand for access to personal or business information — would not have to tell the FBI if they consult a lawyer.

ALSO, now all warrantless "sneak-and-peek" searches must include notification of the individual who has been searched within 30 days AFTER that search has been conducted. THAT's a pretty good rule, I'd say.

And those are only the changes I know of--I haven't even read the dang thing, who's got time for that?

sri

"black-skinned hijra, and also a disease-laden faggot"

these people kept india backwards?
if only india did not have dark skinned people ,is that what you mean.
-------------------------------
ravi you need therapy

ATS

Sri,

Once again, defend your negativity toward America by answering one simple question.

*** If America is such a bad country, just tell us which country or countries have done more and sacrificed more for the good of humanity than the United States? (Again, you may define "good", "sacrifice", etc. any way you like.)

For example, tell us, which country has fought harder and spent more of its national treasure to create democracy in more countries than America?

drew

50 Greatest Accomplishments
George W. Bush's 50 greatest accomplishments.

Can the nation survive 3 more years of this chimperor? sure but in what form. read it and weep you imbiciles.

1. I attacked and took over two countries.
2. I spent the US surplus and bankrupted the US treasury.
3. I shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history (not easy)
4. I set an economic record for the most personal bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.
5. I set all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the stock market.
6. I am the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
7. I am the first president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.
8. In my first year in office I set the all-time record for the most days on vacation by any president in US history (tough to beat my dad's, but I did).
9. After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided over the worst security failure in US history.
10. I set the record for most campaign raising trips by any president in US history.
11. In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their jobs.
12. I cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US history.
13. I set the all-time record for most real estate foreclosures in a 12-month period.
14. I appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any other president in US history.
15. I set the record for fewest press conferences of any president since the advent of TV.
16. I presided over the biggest energy crisis in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.
17. I signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any other US president in history.
18. I cut health-care benefits for war veterans.
19. I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any one person in the history of mankind.
20. I dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.
21. I've made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any in US history.
22. Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US histiry (the poorest multimillionaire, Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her).
23. I am the first president in US history to have all 50 states of the union simultaneously struggle against bankruptcy.
24. I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any market in any country in the history of the world.
25. I am the first president in US history to order a US attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community.
26. I have created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the US.
27. I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any other president in US history (Reagan was hard to beat, but I did it!!!)
28. I am the first president in US history to compel the United Nations to remove the US from the Human Rights Commission.
29. I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the Elections Monitoring Board.
30. I removed more checks and balances and have the least congressional oversight of any presidential administration in US history.
31. I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.
32. I withdrew from the World Court Of Law.
33. I refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
34. I am the first president in US history to refuse United Nations elections inspectors access during the 2002 elections.
35. I am the all-time US (and world) record holder for the most corporate campaign donations.
36. The biggest lifetime contributor to my campaign, who is also one of my best friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of EnronCorporation)
37. I spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.
38. I am the first president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied, saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1).
39. I am the first US president to establish a secret shadow government.
40. I took the world's sympathy for the US after 9/11, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).
41. I am the first US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.
42. I changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
43. I set the all-time record for the number of administration appointees who violated US laws by not selling their huge investments in corporations that later made bids for gov. contracts.
44. I have removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.
45. I have created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided that the US has been since the Civil War.
46. I entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.
47. I have at least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available).
48. I was AWOL from the National Guard and deserted the military during time of war. I refused to take a drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.
49. All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my father's library, sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view. All records of any SEC investigation into my insider trading or bankrupted companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
50. All minutes of meetings of any public corporations for which I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view. Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review

GK

drew,

#1) alone tells me you are a fanatical anti-American. The US attacked Afghanistan after 9/11, and only those who are happy about 9/11 would oppose attacking Afghanistan.

Your own list proves you to be a treasonous fifth-column anti-American.

Please send your list to as many people as possible. That is sure to help you win elections.

GK

Sri,

You can't answer simple questions posed to you multiple times. This essentially means that you have admitted that America has benefited humanity the most. It also proves that you are not very intelligent at all - normal people can answer simple questions when asked 4-5 times.

sri

I have answered. I told you that i do not know what is , or who has benefitted humanity most. Your assumption is fine with me
as its irrelevent to current situation the country finds itself in.
However carpet bombing falluja, abu graib torutures,
no trial detentions in gitmo should worry you as they are not humane. war against a country that did not attack is not humane. 2million dead in vietnam is not humane. so it should worry you so that your country will benefit humanity more in the future. Isn`t that what you want?
Same for economics of debt, that should concern you also, pointing out problems does not make someone anti-american, ignoring them blindly , cheerleading in a time of war is questionable in benefit.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
samuel johnson.
Anyway this is my last post for a while, I`ll let you and the rest resort to villifying and name calling.
now i go back to making love liberally for the afternoon :)

drew

Oh The Humanity, you want to know about humanity then you must know something about each one of these events, after that you will have an idea.

A list of US Wars and Military Involvements

By Amir Ali

ilaam.net, October 18, 2005

Ever since the United States Army massacred 300 Lakotas in 1890,

American forces have intervened elsewhere around the globe 100 times.

Indeed the United States has sent troops abroad or militarily struck other countries' territory 216 times since independence from Britain.

Since 1945 the United States has intervened in more than 20 countries throughout the world. Since World War II, the United States actually dropped bombs on 23 countries. These include:

China 1945-46,

Korea 1950-53,

China 1950-53,

Guatemala 1954,

Indonesia 1958,

Cuba 1959-60,

Guatemala 1960,

Congo 1964,

Peru 1965,

Laos 1964-73,

Vietnam 1961-73,

Cambodia 1969-70,

Guatemala 1967-69,

Grenada 1983,

Lebanon 1984,

Libya 1986,

El Salvador 1980s,

Nicaragua 1980s,

Panama 1989,

Iraq 1991-1999,

Sudan 1998,

Afghanistan 1998,

Yugoslavia 1999,

Afghanistan 2001 and continues in 2005,

Iraq 2003 and continues in 2005.

<.....deranged anti-US hatred edited by siteowner.....>

GK

drew,

At least now you have admitted that you really hate America overall, not just Bush. It must be torture to be so JEALOUS of such a great and noble country... tee hee.

Why do you live in America, then? It is pretty stupid to live in a country that you hate so much.

Readers : Note how anti-American hatemonger 'drew' went from the guise of Bush-hate into broader hatred of America when confronted.

GK

Sri,

You admit that you don't know of any country that has benefited humanity more than America. Yet you obsess with hating America and claim that America is 'falling apart' even though you don't live here.

Pretty pathetic....

You are still upset that India is a very pro-US country. Get over it, that's reality.

Furthermore, you keep bringing up your homosexuality as a source of pride for you, even on an anonymous blog....

Readers : Note how anti-American hate-monger 'Sri' cannot name a single country that has benefited humanity more than the US. He does not even live in the US, yet is obsessed with insisting that America is 'falling apart'. His self-esteem is so low that he has to justify having an active sex life (albeit a homosexual one) even on an anonymous blog. This is an interesting study into the psychosis of anti-Americanism.

sri

i see that you have edited/changed my post. nice one.
this blog is toast, you are insecure so you have to change peoples posts to ridicule them hillarious.
I win. ha ha got ya.
you are forever a loser on your own blog. how pathetic, hollow, nothing make me moe happy than this little stunt, just childish joy when konw the opposition caved. once again kiss my brown ass
KMBA

GK

Sri,

Are you insane? What are you talking about? You have been defeated and humiliated, and you know it.

How miserable it must be, to hate a great and noble country, even though you don't live in the US AND you can't name a country that has benefitted humanity more.

Your pathetic defeat in this thread has been noted for the world to see (commentry in bold). Yet, you are too ashamed to even admit that you hate America. No wonder your side always loses. Now even India is a pro-US country..

C'ya, loser. tee hee..

Khepri

""Why did Senators Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, Reid, and Obama vote to renew the Patriot Act in 2006, even after years of protests over it? They had time to think about it, yet it passed 89-10. Why?""

I have to object to your elevation of junior rookie Senator Obama Barak as anyone of import...

He's safely ignored for now. After he's re-elected to office will he be worthy of our full attention...;)

Dave

I have a few points on the PA that I would like argued against because I am writing an opposing viewpoints piece. The act was obvoiusly created under the Necessary and Proper clause, however that clause is limited when it comes into conflict with exisitng rights of the people. Right to privacy is an assumed right to the people as it is unenumerated and is protected under the 9th. People have the right to be secure in their persons, papers( i believe this is the framers way of saying communications, ie. phones and email also), and property from unnecessary search and seizure under the 4th. People are discriminated against, as with the FBI's abuse of power seen recently, for excercising their 1st amendment rights. 1st amendment states that no law shall be made to infringe on those. "No law means no law." Also, provisions under the PA have denied hundreds of people, including Americans (some detainees have been released without trail because of obvious gov't mistakes) their Writ of Habeus corpus. In return, the people are no more protected from their suspects by simply denying them a fair trial or trial at all. This was a reason American began in the first place, contempt for the British court system. 14th amendment provides all citizens due process. This cannot exist when the gov't is holding some detainees, even Americans (who are instead held in SC rather than Camp X-ray) under a different set of rules and guidelines. What happened to rule of law in which the gov't has to follow the laws also?

There are cases provided in which people have been abused through provisions of the PA. Mamdouh Habib would tell you of when he was kidnapped and tortured in Egypt for five months, then miraculously released after confessing and having his confessions found invalid thru coercion. He was never told what he was charged with, no right to a lawyer, no contact to the outside world, and never had a trial. Americans are scrutinized everyday when the gov't has installed programs, such as with AT&T, that create a system which duplicates and relays to a gov't supercomputer all communications thru their server. Persons being held in Cuba and South Carolina would say they feel abused because they have not been charged with any crimes, had a trial, access to legal council, explained how the long their sentence is, or why they are being subject to sub-Geneva regulations regarding torture and legal/civil rights.

I am unsure as to when the American people agreed to compromise their rights for security from their gov't. It is the people's fault for not speaking up. They've tried in ACLU v. NSA, which was struck down in the 6th circuit of the CA courts because no one could prove that they had been wrongfully surveyed. It is difficult to show this when the gov't would have no existing warrant or documentation that the surveillance had actually ever occurred.

I believe Benjamin Franklin said it best when he stated, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Please offer purely Constitutional backing, case law, supported philosophies, and historical precedent when retorting as any unfounded personal philosophies hold no stance or credibility in what I am looking to write.

Scott

Wow who ever wrote this article is a complete idiot.

# 1 a war on terror is or can be a never ending war, #2 any one that gives there rights away from fear is truly a sheep, #3 the excuses for the war where total lies, The CIA admitted they had absolutely no proof that alkida was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. #4 the 9/11 commission was a complete pack of lies, you can go watch the vids of the fire fighters that where there, they will tel you there where bombs in the buildings, since when did eye witness testimony not get taking into consideration? It was an inside job.

If you don't think your government is capable of doing such things, look up north woods, A pre planed terrorist attack on US citizens by US officials.

And if it was not an inside job, you protect you self by strengthening borders and have people on alert, not take rights away because of fear. and not want to open the borders like Bush wants to do with Canada and Mexico, secretly with no congress and no public input. look up the SPP for more info.

The only anti American is some one that would wright this dribble and give his freedom away freely.

I don't know who wrote this dribble but you can be 99.9 percent sure he works for the government.

As far as rights being abused ask The US Muslim citizens that where detained and held without charges in small cells with the lights left on, women and children, US CITACENS. If you cant ask them look it up on google video, you wont see it on tv now because Bush has made it illegal for people to say who has been taken or where or why.

The constitution is Bushes but wipe now. You guys have lost so many rights its unbelievable and unconscionable some one could wright dribble like this. Go on google find out how many rights you guys have lost. You are so close to a dictator ship now its not even funny.

I am sure this will be deleted, but when I see nonsense like this dribble it makes me mad. I am Canadian and America was fine when its people had there freedoms, no country should be suppressed like the bush administration has done to you guys. All in the name of fear.

You guys watch for another attack and don't be surprised if Bush cancels the next election.

GK

Scott,

Yawn...you are another unthinking nut who thinks that 9/11 was an inside job. I can finish you off with just two questions.

1) Why is not a single elected Democrat accusing Bush of this? They have the most to gain from this if it is true.

2) Did America also conduct the terrorist attacks after 9/11 in London, Madrid, Bali, Beslan, Pakistan, Turkey, Jordan, Morocco, and India?

3) What are the 'rights' you claim Americans have lost?

I doubt you have the courage or intellect to admit that your beliefs don't stand up to logic.

jack

The problem with your entire aticle is that you claim in order to be against the patriot act one must have an alternative idea. simply speaking a government always has to justify its action and i can claim that the government hasnt provided me with a reason to allow it to do something that can potentially violate civil liberties. Do I need to provide an alternative to the Nazi's use of the Nuremburg laws to disagree with them. The onus is on you to prove that we need new laws in the first place since your article never established why the patriot act is needed you have no argument.

GK

Jack,

If one is going to criticize an idea, they ought to have a better idea. It is part of being an adult (something Leftists are averse to).

You are opposed to something that 89 out of 100 Senators, including most Democrats, support. You claim that 'we don't need new laws', even though the inability of the CIA, FBI, etc. to share different pieces of information are what led to 9/11 not being prevented. It would be foolish to continue to prevent these agencies from sharing information (which is why Democrats support the Patriot Act).

Of course, those who opposed the Patriot Act tend to corelated with the fringe of people who think 9/11 was 'an inside job'.

Note the deranged 'Scott' above, a Canadian who instructs us that 'Bush will cancel the next election'. If this is the intelligence and predictive ability of the fringe who oppose the Patriot Act, then it is unsurprising that Senators don't take these squawkings into account.

TheSkeptic

The US Patriot Act needs to berepealed immediatley because America is not at danger, 9/11 was not a terrorist attack, and although the Patriot Act is not being abused currently who knows how in the future the government might use it to control the masses so if you love America and want to protect the ideals it was founded on and want future generations to enjoy the same rights we do you to should oppose it.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment