Total Police State Takeover???

Discussion in 'Politics' started by trader556, Jul 2, 2003.

  1. A Brief Analysis of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act 2003, Also Known as Patriot Act II

    Important note on Patriot Act I

    Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex) told the Washington Times that no member of Congress was allowed to read the first Patriot Act that was passed by the House on October 27, 2001. The first Patriot Act was universally decried by civil libertarians and Constitutional scholars from across the political spectrum. William Safire, while writing for the New York Times, described the first Patriot Act's powers by saying that President Bush was seizing dictatorial control.

    Read on folks, form your own opinions. :(

    Heading down the slippery slope to a Fascist state.?
  2. Babak


    Your comment has been deemed to be inflammatory. CARNIVORE is tracing your IP as you read this.
  3. trdrmac


    Quote From End of this guys article:

    I have produced two documentary films and written a book about what really happened on September 11th. The bottom line is this: the military-industrial complex carried the attacks out as a pretext for control. Anyone who doubts this just has’t looked at the mountains of hard evidence.

    This sort of government chip in my neck stuff is almost laughable but sad. I digress.

    Let's look at a recent supreme court decision on the rights of a child molester.

    And this guy's rights to keep and bear arms.

    And lets just for shits and giggles count how many people are injured or die in fireworks accidents (Like the recent AZ wildfire) over the weekend. Good thing explosives are still legal in many states.

    I for one think we have too many freedoms (read assumed entitlements) and everyone should be willing to give something up. I will gladly get a national ID card, register my gun, dna and fingerprints. Tired of where I see people taking "Rights" in this country and what it does to "Fellow Citizens Rights".

    Time to give people, and if I wrong you can spit on me as I am loaded into a cattle car and shipped to Utah by my government.

  4. I think you're a bit too trusting of the government's intentions.
    Did you know that there are more political prisoners (aka 'drug offenders') locked up in American prisons than violent crimes convicts or property criminals? By making something most everybody does anyways a crime, we can all be classified as 'criminals', and can be more easily controlled.

    Some laws are not written to be obeyed, but to be broken.
  5. trdrmac


    I did not say that I am happy with the current leadership at all. That applys to both Democrats and Republicans.

    Drugs should be legal, Prostitution should be legal, Dr assisted suicide should be legal. They are all Personal Choices.

    What I am more concerned with is seeing another Sept 11 or Oklahoma City Bombing, being shot at random or seeing some crook like Ken Lay walk free.

    That is what the government should be there to protect us from.
    And it is my belief that "Honest Citizens" need to give up some of their rights to "fight the evil doers". If everyone always bellyaches (as they do) my rights, my rights then we will see other attacks.

    As for the controlled I just don't buy it in a conventional sense. But many people won't take the time to explore much beyond the rhetoric, which is sad.
  6. <b>When I see the government applying these concepts correctly:</b>

    "Drugs should be legal, Prostitution should be legal, Dr assisted suicide should be legal. They are all Personal Choices.

    What I am more concerned with is seeing another Sept 11 or Oklahoma City Bombing, being shot at random or seeing some crook like Ken Lay walk free."

    <b> I'll be really to give up some personal freedoms. Not a moment before then. The so called 'Patriot Act' takes away our freedoms, without giving any enhancment to our safety in return.</b>
  7. I admit to being of two minds here. On the one hand, constitutional freedoms should never be handed over lightly. On the other, government's primary duty is to protect us. As the Supreme Court said long ago, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

    I am troubled by the fact that the government wants to restrict many rights of lawabiding citizens, and impose onerous and demeaning obligations on us, such as the idiotic airport searches. Yet at the same time, it seems reluctant to take very basic steps to reduce the threat. Our borders are still basically wide open. Illegal immigration is winked at by both parties in an attempt to secure new voters. The govrnment allows Saudi Arabia to pour vast sums into supporting radical Islamist clerics here. They have infiltrated our military and prison system, where they find a receptive audience for their poison. Would we allow the KKK to set up white supremacy groups in prisons? Obviously not, but the government somehow is unable to distinguish legitimate religion from terrorist recruitment.

    History records two disturbing facts. One, the biggest threat to liberty and indeed life is invariably government. Two, most peoples have been eager to surrender their freedoms in response to various states of emergency.

    Infringements on liberty such as national identity cards and implantable chips must be stopped. If adopted, we will have to grow used to the classic totalitarian demand," Your papers, please."

    By contrast, I don't see a problem with urban video surveillance. It is an example of using high tech to leverage our security forces.
  8. I have to disagree with you on registration of guns, dna and fingerprints. No doubt in specific instances that would make life easier for the police. But that is not the end of the argument. Beating confessions out of suspects, unlimited rights to search and seizure and abolishment of jury trials would also make their lives easier. The question is what limits should be placed on a free people? In my mind these various registration requirements turn us into subjects, not free men.

    One distinction I make is whether they apply to law-abiding people. A hallmark of totalitarianism is imposing controls on people who have done nothing wrong. I don't have a problem with taking dna from criminals. They have forfeited some of their rights and warrant closer scrutiny.

    It's easy to say, well why would you object unless you are doing something wrong? Gun registration provides the best example. There is one basic reason to require registration , and that is to pave the way for confiscation. The leading gun control groups are quite clear that they want to outlaw the private ownership of firearms. We see the progression in countries like Canada and Australia, first registration, then confiscation. In both cases, law-abiding citizens are turned into criminals unless they are prepared to forfeit their liberty.
  9. gms


    About 9/11, I've been wondering: the forts by the NYC bridges that are staffed by the military, don't they have the assignment of being watchful and of protecting the bridges in event of enemy attack... when the jets went offcourse and flew low into NYC airspace, why didn't that prompt any reaction from them?
  10. Babak, shhhhh :) we don't want sheeple to wake up. Remember, "ignorance is bliss" well until the bs catches up:D :D

    CARNIVORE :) Big bro really watching

    Carnivore/DCS1000 is an electronic "wiretapping" tool, currently in use by the FBI.
    Details of how the system works are short on specifics. What is known is that Carnivore/DCS1000 would be installed at the suspect's Internet service provider to scan all incoming and outgoing emails--including sender and recipient addresses as well as subject lines--for messages related to a criminal probe. And while the system, a sophisticated combination of hardware and proprietary software, can perform fine-tuned searches, it is also capable of broad sweeps, potentially enabling the agency to keep tabs on all of the network's communications.

    "The FBI is placing a black box inside the computer network of an ISP," Dempsey told the Associated Press. "Not even the ISP knows exactly what that gizmo is doing."

    BTW, nice move and stand for individual freedoms from your Canadian Privacy Commissioner, George Radwanski.!:) :) :) Is Canada enjoying more personal freedoms in certain areas than US now?:mad:
    #10     Jul 3, 2003