Please give examples of people violated by the Patriot Act
Posted By: ??? on 2005-12-22
In Reply to: How many watts in your lightbulb? - BlueEyes
like rr said, Nancy Pelosi said she knows of no one who has been abused by the Patriot Act.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Can you give some examples?
I am interested in hearing your common sense solutions to the problems our President has faced and how you would have handled the issues differently. Have you thought about running for President? You should if you're up for the great task. I'll vote for you!
Give examples
Goes both ways. Democrats have been time and time again saying untrue and slanderous things about McCain, then they turn around in the same breath and say your lying about Obama. I have not heard any of the lies about Obama though. So far everything has been true, so give some examples. I'd like to be proven wrong.
What free pass? Give examples
You definitely live in an alternate universe.
Put up or shut up. Give examples, cite sources
x
Unfortunately, there are not enough people willing to give to the poor!
Greed is rampant in this country and as the greedy saying goes, "charity begins at home." Therefore, something must be done to help those who are unable to help themselves. If people need to be forced to give, so be it. Whether they are blessed for it or not is of no concern to me. Call it whatever you want, I call it human decency!
It is people like Phelps that give
Christians bad names. You don't have to agree with the gay lifestyle but to carry signs that say "God hates fags" is just wrong. That isn't a mesage of love. That is hate pure and simple. It is really sad that people like Phelps has followers. I know we were all ready in our area to protect families of fallen soldiers just in case those nut jobs showed up to protest at the funeral. What jerks! No consideration at all. Just horrible horrible hateful people who would do that.
The really sad part is that you just know that the news media is going to run with this blaming conservatives and grouping us all together just to prove how wrong conservatives and Christians are. That too is sad. We aren't all like Phelps.
Uhh, no! Stealing from wealthy to give to people
nm
These people would not give Palin credit for a thing.
nm
So people are poor because they chose to give tax cuts to billionaires?
Just today Cheney cast the deciding vote to cut back Medicare, Medicaid, and student loans. I guess as long as you're not the one who has a bit of misfortune and need a safety net, you really don't give a hoot, do ya? What about the billions spent in Iraq to turn it into a theocracy like Iran?
My rights haven't been violated
again, name someone's rights who have? Nobody can seem to answer that question.
I don't care how he protects us just so he does. We still don't know if what he did was illegal or not, but of course you've already tried and sentenced him.
Again, this is not going to be a winning issue with you all.
So now I'm a racist because I don't want the constitution violated?
Go figure.
So what happened to you? Violated by a priest?
n/m
Must also be hard for some people to give direct answers after making a statement like that.
nm
Court rules Bush violated Clean Air Act
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/17/AR2006031701127_pf.html
Looser Emission Rules Rejected
Court Says Changes By EPA Violated Clean Air Act
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 18, 2006; A01
A federal appeals court blocked the Bush administration's four-year effort to loosen emission rules for aging coal-fired power plants, unanimously ruling yesterday that the changes violated the Clean Air Act and that only Congress could authorize such revisions.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with officials from 14 states, including New York, California and Maryland, who contended that the rule changes -- allowing older power plants, refineries and factories to upgrade their facilities without having to install the most advanced pollution controls -- were illegal and could increase the amount of health-threatening pollution in the atmosphere.
The Environmental Protection Agency's New Source Review policy was formally issued in 2003 but has never taken effect because of legal challenges by state officials and environmental groups. The administration has long argued that the existing standards are too stringent and have discouraged utility plants and other industries from upgrading and expanding their facilities. But opponents have characterized the rule changes as a favor to administration allies in the utility and coal-producing industries that would greatly add to public health problems.
New York Attorney General Eliot L. Spitzer, who led the court fight to block the administration's New Source Review policy, called yesterday's ruling a major victory for clean air and public health and a rejection of a flawed policy.
It will encourage industry to build new and cleaner facilities, instead of prolonging the life of old, dirty plants, Spitzer said.
In a statement, EPA spokesman John Millet said: We are disappointed that the Court did not find in favor of the United States. We are reviewing and analyzing the opinion and cannot comment further at this time.
Some studies have linked pollution from coal-fired power plants to as many as 20,000 premature deaths in the United States every year. Environmental activists have made curbing this type of pollution one of their most pressing legislative and legal priorities, and yesterday they celebrated the ruling.
Irish eyes are surely smiling -- and we all will be breathing easier -- with this green court ruling on St. Patrick's Day, said John Walke, director of the clean-air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. This is about as thorough a rebuke a court can give.
President Bush took office in 2001 promising to ease regulations on coal-fired power plants as part of a larger energy production initiative. Three successive administrators of the EPA have tried without success to alter the rules and policies adopted during the Clinton administration that cracked down on aging power plants and refineries that were not equipped with modern air pollution equipment when they were upgraded and when their output was expanded.
Under the revised policy that was rejected by the court yesterday, power plants and other industrial polluters would not have to install new pollution technology if they modernized less than 20 percent of their operations.
The central question in the case focused on what constitutes an industrial facility modification, because that is what triggers the federal requirement to cut down on the smog or soot emitted by utilities, oil refineries, incinerators, chemical plants and manufacturing operations. Previous administrations, including Bill Clinton's, had interpreted that phrase to encompass any physical activity that increases pollution from a given facility, with the exception of routine maintenance.
EPA officials in the Bush administration sought to broaden this exemption by asserting that routine maintenance is any activity that amounts to less than 20 percent of a plant's value. But the ruling, written by Judge Judith W. Rogers, rejected that reasoning as illogical.
EPA's approach would ostensibly require that the definition of 'modification' include a phrase such as 'regardless of size, cost, frequency, effect,' or other distinguishing characteristic, Rogers wrote. Only in a Humpty Dumpty world would Congress be required to use superfluous words while an agency could ignore an expansive word that Congress did use. We decline to adopt such a world-view.
The other two judges on the panel were David S. Tatel and Janice Rogers Brown.
The EPA's statement did not indicate whether the administration intends to appeal the ruling. Both Walke and Scott Segal, a lobbyist for the utilities industry, said it would be difficult for the administration to forge ahead in light of the appeals court's strong ruling. Walke said the decision is tantamount to the court burying the rule six feet under, where before it was just in a casket.
Segal said the ruling will make it more costly for plants to operate. This is a missed opportunity for reform that would have made it easier to improve power plant efficiency and workplace safety, and that's bad news for consumers and the environment, he said. We believe it is a step backwards for the protection of air quality in the United States.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
U.S. military violated own rules on mentally ill troops...sm
Updated: 10:04 p.m. ET May 13, 2006
HARTFORD, Conn. - U.S. military troops with severe psychological problems have been sent to Iraq or kept in combat, even when superiors have been aware of signs of mental illness, a newspaper reported for Sunday editions.
The Hartford Courant, citing records obtained under the federal Freedom of Information Act and more than 100 interviews of families and military personnel, reported numerous cases in which the military failed to follow its own regulations in screening, treating and evacuating mentally unfit troops from Iraq.
In 1997, Congress ordered the military to assess the mental health of all deploying troops. The newspaper, citing Pentagon statistics, said fewer than 1 in 300 service members were referred to a mental health professional before shipping out for Iraq as of October 2005.
Here's a few examples.
Here's a few, I've got lots more. Be aware, though, that I usually do not honor such rude requests.
From a Jewish publication citing poll results:
Poll: U.S. Jews Overwhelmingly Support Israeli Gaza/West Bank Disengagement, Say Israel Should Depart Most Settlements to Secure Peace
NEW YORK, April 11, 2005? American Jews, by a nearly three to one margin (62% to 23%) support Israel?s disengagement plan to leave Gaza and some West Bank settlements, according to a new survey released today.
In addition, a large plurality of American Jews believe that in the context of a peace agreement Israel should be willing to withdraw from most Jewish settlements in the West Bank (41% vs. 27%).
These results emerge from a national telephone survey last week of 501 American Jews, directed by Prof. Steven M. Cohen, sociologist at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem for Ameinu, an American Zionist organization, which for 70 years has trained future leaders for the Israeli and American Jewish communities.
______________________
From Brandeis University publication:
Sixty-two percent of American Jews agree, according to a survey conducted in April by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem sociologist Steven Cohen for the liberal American Zionist organization Ameinu. Twenty-three percent oppose the withdrawal.
Opinions have divided roughly along denominational lines, according to Brandeis University historian Jonathan Sarna.
It's mainly within the Orthodox community that you see deep engagement with the issue, he said. Most Orthodox leaders both in America and in Israel are quite passionately opposed to the withdrawal for religious and perhaps political reasons. Non-Orthodox are either content to see the government policy followed - this is what happens in a democracy; the government makes a law and one follows it - or are simply disengaged from the whole issue.
____________
From Peter Kenyon, NPR, on Israeli Jewish viewpoint: Despite the highly visible protests, opinion polls have consistently shown that a majority of Israelis favor the evacuation of Gaza settlements at least in part because of the high cost of maintaining Israeli troops there to protect the settlers.
40 examples of O's alleged
1. $1000 energy rebate.
2. State growth fund/Jobs growth fund job loss prevention measures.
3. Tax cuts to working families.
4. Eliminate income tax for seniors making less than $50,000/yr.
5. Simplify tax code.
6. Trade policy reform.
7. Revise NAFTA to favor American jobs preservation.
8. Improve jobs transition assistance.
9. Tax credits to companies that preserve US jobs.
10. Establish Advanced Manufacturing Fund to encourage innovation and jobs creation.
11. Increased funding for Manufacturing Extension Program to create and protect US jobs.
12. 5 million new green jobs.
13. New job training programs for clean technologies.
14. Extend Production Tax Credit in renewable energy sector.
15. Create National Infrastructure Investment Bank.
16. Invest in science.
17. Make research and development tax credit permanent.
18. Reform Universal Service Fund to provide and expand broadband across America with new tax and loan incentives.
19. Tax relief for small businesses and start-up companies.
20. Create network of public-private business incubators.
21. Ensure freedom to unionize.
22. Ensure worker's right to organize.
23. Protect striking workers.
24. Raise minimum wage.
25. Crack down on fraudulent brokers and lenders.
26. Create universal mortgage credit.
27. Ensure more accountability in the subprime mortgage industry.
28. Mandate accurate loan disclosure.
29. Close bankruptcy loophole for mortgage companies.
30. Create credit card rating system to improve disclosure.
31. Establish credit card bill of rights to protect consumer.
32. Reform bankruptcy laws.
33. Cap interest rats on payday loans.
34. Encourage lending institutions to make small consumer loans.
35. Expand Family Medical Leave Act.
36. Encourage companies to adopt paid leave policies.
37. Expand after-school opportunities.
38. Expand Child and Dependent Care tax credit.
39. Protect against caregiver discrimination.
40. Expand flexible work arrangements.
Please PROVIDE the examples.
Since these examples are so plentiful, you should have no problem coming up with a few of them.
Actually, this attempt to misdirect attention away from the REAL content of the posts, which you don't like, is what's boring. It's a trick you probably learned from Obama, who figures most people won't even notice that he's changed the conversation.
We notice that you're changing the conversation, so you lose.
Please PROVIDE the examples.
Since these examples are so plentiful, you should have no problem coming up with a few of them.
Actually, this attempt to misdirect attention away from the actual content of the posts, which you don't like, is what's painfully transparent and truly boring.
I won't answer your absurd accusations again and return the other readers to the program previously in progress. You just carry on with yourself.
Okay....please post examples of McCain's...
lock-em down and shun-em policies. I did not find that, and I looked.
Second...Obama snorted cocaine. That is an illegal drug, so he broke the law. Period. He just didn't get caught. How did he pay for it? Did he deal? We don't know. And I don't care...it is in his past. Just like this is in Cindy McCain's past. He was snorting an illegal substance. Prescription drugs are not illegal. Obtaining them with forged prescriptions is. They both broke the law.
Third...how many addicts just come clean on their own? Nearly NONE. It nearly always takes some kind of thing like an accident caused by the addiction, and intervention by family members...let's be honest about that.
You then say Obama supports rehab and no incarceration for first-time offenders. Your candidate does, but you don't? Or only support it if it isn't Cindy McCain? What does what her husband support or does not support have to do with it? She is still a first time offender. Would you not extend the same thing to her you would to anyone else? Isn't that exactly what you are saying is not fair?
I can't see where one of these issues is worse than the other. He did illegal drugs, she asked that someone forge prescriptions. Both illegal.
And I would be willing to bet that if one of Obama's children, or Obama's wife, got in trouble with drugs prescription drugs they would move heaven and earth to protect them, just as McCain did.
And McCain does not advocate tougher laws on first time offenders. I found this in searching for his drug law stance:
"I also think we ought to do something you may approve of and that is first time offenders ought not to be imprisoned, I think they should be given the opportunity for rehab. In Arizona we have a program, first time offenders--abusers--they can go through a rehab program where there is frequent testing. If they complete that they can go forward with their lives."
McCain introduced the "Addiction Free Treatment Act" (S.423), which prohibits the use of funds for any drug treatment or rehabilitation program that uses methadone or other heroin detoxification agents unless the program follows specified guidelines, including that the program has as its primary objective the elimination of drug addiction and that it conducts random and frequent comprehensive drug testing for all narcotics.
Senate statements S.423 Feb 11, 1999
McCain indicates that federally sponsored drug education and drug treatment programs should be expanded. He says, "Work to expand public/private partnerships in support of such initiatives, and coordinate them with state and local efforts."
Vote-Smart.org 2000 NPAT Jan 13, 2000
The only "tough" laws I have seen is for dealers only, and international drug traffickers like Colombian cartels and that sort of thing.
And if you look at all the times the Kennedys have pulled strings when theirs have been accused of rape, had addiction problems, Teddy left the scene of an accident that resulted in a fatality...
This, to me, is a nonissue. On either person's part. Her drug use (in the past) and his drug use (in the past). McCain's drug stance is not that different from Obama's. Both think first offenders should get rehab, not incarceration, by their own words.
well, at least the ones who post here are good examples...
sadly.
I agree 100%. Other great examples of....
socialism...Cuba and Venezuela. See how it is working for them. Ends in dictatorship nearly every single time. People buy into class warfare and by the time they realize the middle class they were trying to save is truly gone and all you have is the "government" and everybody else...all the populace in the lower class. The handwriting is on the wall...and the socialist party of the US (the DNC) has us in its crosshairs...brought to you courtesy of George Soros and his vision of one world government. Hellooo.
Please post examples of hatred and intolerance...sm
that you say describes the Republicans, please.
Other than Hannity, maybe, I can't think of any, so don't include him please. He sometimes is an island to himself. And don't include Rush, he doesn't hate democrats either, you just perceive him to.
Now O'Reilly, he's just plain weird these days, can't say hatred comes from him, he really does try to be fair and balance, no matter what the dems say about him. He's so fair and balanced, he leans too far to the left a lot lately. Can't figure that one out for the life of me, and dems still say he's banked far to the right...lol
Across the board, what I see, is the intolerance coming from the liberal democratics, one of which I used to be, oh so many moons ago.
I disagree with their platform as it has evolved, however.
Particularly the free speech thing, which only applies to them.
Examples please, without the above caveats.
A couple of examples of Ann Coulter's inner beauty
"[Clinton] masturbates in the sinks."---Rivera Live 8/2/99
"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"---Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01
The "backbone of the Democratic Party" is a "typical fat, implacable welfare recipient"---syndicated column 10/29/99
To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC
"Women like Pamela Harriman and Patricia Duff are basically Anna Nicole Smith from the waist down. Let's just call it for what it is. They're whores."---Salon.com 11/16/00
Juan Gonzales is "Cuba's answer to Joey Buttafuoco," a "miscreant," "sperm-donor," and a "poor man's Hugh Hefner."---Rivera Live 5/1/00
On Princess Diana's death: "Her children knew she's sleeping with all these men. That just seems to me, it's the definition of 'not a good mother.' ... Is everyone just saying here that it's okay to ostentatiously have premarital sex in front of your children?"..."[Diana is] an ordinary and pathetic and confessional - I've never had bulimia! I've never had an affair! I've never had a divorce! So I don't think she's better than I am."---MSNBC 9/12/97
"I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote."---Hannity & Colmes, 8/17/99
"I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote."---Politically Incorrect, 2/26/01
"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."---George, 7/99
"We're now at the point that it's beyond whether or not this guy is a horny hick. I really think it's a question of his mental stability. He really could be a lunatic. I think it is a rational question for Americans to ask whether their president is insane."---Equal Time
"It's enough [to be impeached] for the president to be a pervert."---The Case Against Bill Clinton, Coulter's 1998 book.
"Clinton is in love with the erect penis."---This Evening with Judith Regan, Fox News Channel 2/6/00
"I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don't need any more." Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, "Well, before the New Deal...[The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start."---Politically Incorrect 5/7/97
"If they have the one innocent person who has ever to be put to death this century out of over 7,000, you probably will get a good movie deal out of it."---MSNBC 7/27/97
"If those kids had been carrying guns they would have gunned down this one [child] gunman. ... Don't pray. Learn to use guns."---Politically Incorrect, 12/18/97
"The presumption of innocence only means you don't go right to jail."---Hannity & Colmes 8/24/01
"I have to say I'm all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the 'hood to be flogged publicly."---MSNBC 3/22/97
"Originally, I was the only female with long blonde hair. Now, they all have long blonde hair."---CapitolHillBlue.com 6/6/00
"I am emboldened by my looks to say things Republican men wouldn't."---TV Guide 8/97
"Let's say I go out every night, I meet a guy and have sex with him. Good for me. I'm not married."---Rivera Live 6/7/00
"Anorexics never have boyfriends. ... That's one way to know you don't have anorexia, if you have a boyfriend."---Politically Incorrect 7/21/97
"I think [Whitewater]'s going to prevent the First Lady from running for Senate."---Rivera Live 3/12/99
"My track record is pretty good on predictions."---Rivera Live 12/8/98
"The thing I like about Bush is I think he hates liberals."---Washington Post 8/1/00
On Rep. Christopher Shays (d-CT) in deciding whether to run against him as a Libertarian candidate: "I really want to hurt him. I want him to feel pain."---Hartford Courant 6/25/99
"The swing voters---I like to refer to them as the id-yot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster. "---Beyond the News, Fox News Channel, 6/4/00
"My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism."---MSNBC 2/8/97
"You want to be careful not to become just a blowhard."---Washington Post 10/16/98
Beauty if in the eyes of he beholder. To me, she looks like a cross-dressing transversite in the middle of gener identity surgical/hormonal therapy. Be that as it may, Ann Coulter is a potty-mouth tramp who ain't got no class.
Add to that the Patriot Act..
They could not get the Patriot Act passed before 9/11. Read this Act. It is downright scary and at the very end it states "or other purposes." What "other purposes?"
yes. Patriot. nm
nm
Don't want a patriot, need someone
who is highly intelligent, who takes time to think through his/her decisions, not a shoot off the hip kind of guy.
what does this have to do with the patriot act?
nm
Now here's a patriot...Not..(sm)
Rush Limbaugh: *I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it.*
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html
Maybe we should put that patriot act to good use....(sm)
like on the nuts at Fox News who are doing nothing but inciting violence.
http://leesearles.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/rightwingnuttery-glenn-beck-and-the-rise-of-fox-news-militia-media-edition/
You can't provide any examples of "gross inaccuracies in the article" because there aren
Why don't you prove me wrong? Is it because you CAN'T?
Kindly stop changing the subject. Still waiting for examples.
You made the charge, so back it up or admit that you can't. And if you don't even have that much integrity, then at least please stop saying things that you can't support.
Sheehan, a true patriot
I have followed this courageous woman who sacrified her son for this war and I have nothing but praise and respect for her. She is a true American.
Michael Moore a patriot? sm
in WHAT alternate universe? Investigate? He wouldn't know a true investigation if it bit him on his very large butt. During the last election when he called Americans in general and Democrats in particular stupid...well I guess he loves the country but holds the people in contempt...particularly liberals as that is what he said...a patriot? Well the founding fathers would spin in their graves on that one. LOL...omg. Michael Moore a patriot. LOL.
He was a true patriot! I'll bet you are
proud of him.
I didn't vote for or against the Patriot Act and neither did you....
Congress did. Obama voted to reauthorize it as well.
The Patriot Act has nothing whatsoever to do with communism. What would make you say that?
Patriot Act/health care
You mean HC, of course. She was not different than any other congress and senate members. Patriot Act parts 1 and 2 were passed BEFORE the Iraq War WMD Bush lies, people die justification based on faulty intelligence was revealed. It makes me crazy that it is still there and I truly hope to see it revised or scrapped sometime in the next 4 years.
I am asking you, seriously...do you know when you started feeling vulnerable to govt control? I feel that too, but I am sure for different reasons than you...and I really am interested to know what make you feel that way.
Obama's plan is not a socialist plan like the ones you are referring to. He is not taking free enterprise out of health care. He is proposing to open up the existing plan that now covers Congress, the senate and federal employees. I have looked at that plan. It offers a number of choices in terms of deductible amounts, types of coverage (HMO, PPO, etc), premium amounts and the like. Pre-existing conditions are covered under some of those plans, if not all of them. He is aiming his pre-existing changes toward private insurance companies as part of his health plan.
It works like any other group plan. If you broaden the base of employees (in this case, citizens added to the plan by CHOICE, not force), the premiums come down. The care remains the same. You are free to choose the plan that best suits your needs or elect to keep your existing insurance. For Obama, it is a question of giving people access to affordable health care. He is not suggesting to transfer tax dollars to create the kind of plan you are describing that you consider to be subpar.
What is TriCare? I have to leave for a little while, but when I get back I will try to retrieve the link I used to inspect the existing federal plan and if I find it, I will post it later this afternoon. BTW, I know I come on strong and use sarcasm to a fault when I feel I am dealing with a poster who I think (sometimes mistakenly) is either ill informed or showing disrespect...not when having healthy debates over differences in opinion, beliefs or ideology. Those debates end up being the most informative of all and are a lot more satisfying than just preaching to the choir.
Do you recall the pre-Patriot Act world?
when diverse viewpoints were at our fingertips and not dictated by Mega-Media outlets riding around in the pockets of political status quo? Not only has this dummed down American audiences nationwide, but it has been a direct assault on the democratic process.
Patriot Act provisions:
1. Law enforcement agencies authorized (and sometimes forced) to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial and other records without a warrant. This has been exercised against their own citizens, the most recent instance being voyeuristic easedropping on intimate conversations between American troops serving in Iraw and their spouses...right to privacy in 1st, 4th and 5th admendments notwithstanding.
2. Eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States. This has allowed them to expand their definition of terrorisim to include individuals and groups exercising their 1st amendment right to redress the government via political dissent.
3. Expanded the Secretary of the Treasury's authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities. An example of this would be freezing funds of a first generation natural born citizens sending money to their family members who still live overseas.
4. Enhances the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting SUSPECTED (not proven) of terrorism-related acts. This has not worked out well for many perfectly innocent citizens and permanent residents whose only crime is to have a Moslem name.
5. The act also expands the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA Patriot Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.
Abuse of the Patriot Act has been rife and is the stuff of legend, as is the controversy that surrounds it. The erosion of civil right stemming from this one piece of legislation is breath-taking, but the mindset that created it....even more so. I will be voting for a candidate that shows at least some sort of awareness of civil rights. Those are the freedoms I worry about.
Huckabee forgot about the Patriot Act...
Ummm audacious? More control? I'm getting whiplash from looking behind in order to look ahead.
I guess our definitions of a Patriot differs
and I guess that's okay, but the truth will come out in the wash, eventually. All the media filters in the world will not keep the truth coming from coming out eventually, and we may all be surprised at what the truth actually is which may be drastically different than either one of our points of view.
Bush to criminalize his protesters under Patriot Act
By Patriot Daily
News Clearinghouse
1-13-6
George Bush wants to create the new criminal of disruptor who can be jailed for the crime of disruptive behavior. A little-noticed provision in the latest version of the Patriot Act will empower Secret Service to charge protesters with a new crime of disrupting major events including political conventions and the Olympics.
The Secret Service would also be empowered to charge persons with breaching security and to charge for entering a restricted area which is where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting. In short, be sure to stay in those wired, fenced containments or free speech zones.
Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse's diary:
Who is the disruptor? Bush Team history tells us the disruptor is an American citizen with the audacity to attend Bush events wearing a T-shirt that criticizes Bush; or a member of civil rights, environmental, anti-war or counter-recruiting groups who protest Bush policies; or a person who invades Bush's bubble by criticizing his policies. A disruptor is also a person who interferes in someone else's activity, such as interrupting Bush when he is speaking at a press conference or during an interview.
What are the parameters of the crime of disruptive behavior? The dictionary defines disruptive as characterized by unrest or disorder or insubordination. The American Medical Association defines disruptive behavior as a style of interaction with people that interferes with patient care, and can include behavior such as foul language; rude, loud or offensive comments; and intimidation of patients and family members.
What are the rules of engagement for disruptors? Some Bush Team history of their treatment of disruptors provide some clues on how this administration will treat disruptors in the future.
(1) People perceived as disruptors may be preemptively ejected from events before engaging in any disruptive conduct.
In the beginning of this war against disruptors, Americans were ejected from taxpayer funded events where Bush was speaking. At first the events were campaign rallies during the election, and then the disruptor ejectment policy was expanded to include Bush's post election campaign-style events on public policy issues on his agenda, such as informing the public on medicare reform and the like. If people drove to the event in a car with a bumper sticker that criticized Bush's policies or wore T-shirts with similar criticism, they were disruptors who could be ejected from the taxpayer event even before they engaged in any disruptive behavior. White House press secretary McClellan defended such ejectments as a proper preemptive strike against persons who may disrupt an event: If we think people are coming to the event to disrupt it, obviously, they're going to be asked to leave.
(2) Bush Team may check its vast array of databanks to cull out those persons who it deems having disruptor potential and then blacklist those persons from events.
The White House even has a list of persons it deems could be disruptive to an eventand then blacklists those persons from attending taxpayer funded events where Bush speaks. Sounds like Bush not only has the power to unilaterally designate people as enemy combatants in the global war on terror, but to unilaterally designate Americans as disruptive in the domestic war against free speech.
(3) The use of surveillance, monitoring and legal actions against disruptors.
Bush's war against disruptors was then elevated to surveillance, monitoring, and legal actions against disruptor organizations. The FBI conducts political surveillance and obtains intelligence filed in its database on Bush administration critics , such as civil rights groups (e.g., ACLU), antiwar protest groups (e.g., United for Peace and Justice) and environmental groups (e.g., Greenpeace).
This surveillance of American citizens exercising their constitutional rights has been done under the pretext of counterterrorism activities surrounding protests of the Iraq war and the Republican National Convention. The FBI maintains it does not have the intent to monitor political activities and that its surveillance and intelligence gathering is intended to prevent disruptive and criminal activity at demonstrations, not to quell free speech.
Surveillance of potential disruptors then graduated to legal actions as a preemptive strike against potential disruptive behavior at public events. In addition to monitoring and surveillance of legal groups and legal activities, the FBI issued subpoenas for members to appear before grand juries based on the FBI's intent to prevent disruptive convention protests. The Justice Dept. opened a criminal investigation and subpoenaed records of Internet messages posted by Bush`s critics. And, the Justice Dept. even indicted Greenpeace for a protest that was so lame the federal judge threw out the case.
So now the Patriot Act, which was argued before enactment as a measure to fight foreign terrorists, is being amended to make clear that it also applies to American citizens who have the audacity to disrupt President Bush wherever his bubble may travel. If this provision is enacted into law, then Bush will have a law upon which to expand the type of people who constitute disruptors and the type of activities that constitute disruptive activities. And, then throw them all in jail.
Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse
Obama voted to extend the Patriot Act...
just so you know. After he said he would work to repeal it. There's some honesty for ya. Frankly, I don't think throwing your pastor and mentor of 20 years under the bus for your political career is particularly moral either. But that is just me.
This should make **patriot** Cheney happy.
NM
The Patriot Act is up but some want to keep it, including Schumer. Don't blame Bush for that. nm
We lost our freedom with the last admin. - wire tapping, Patriot Act, etc....nm
x
That's true - and Barack Obama is a true Patriot too.
Again we can agree to disagree. How John McCain has voted goes against everything I want as a President, but there are an equal number of people to me who feel opposite. That's the way it goes.
Your last comment brought to mind how true that is. Being a true patriot is not harmful in a candidate. John McCain is a patriot. So is Barack Obama.
So you and your daughter have no problem with people who wish for people and their children sm
to burn in hell, call people's children ugly, etc. etc. Well, you might not BE gt, but you might as well be. Even the liberals don't agree with gt, or hadn't you noticed? You might want to check that out and while you are at it, the conservative board has been a regular play pen since the liberals stopped their hateful dive bombing. In fact, some really good conversations are taking place over there between both sides, which DOES NOT happen on this site.
Bored people are BORING people.
nm
Is that how your people justify killing people?
Don't give up......
Hey, how about the URL?
Give it up.
.
|
