Part of Patriot Act ruled unconstitutional

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by curtsibling
Drink and tobacco should be banned as well as pot/smack/crack/etc.

I go the whole way, not stopping short at the favoured vice, like some others.

That is a pretty idiotic statement. I am free, you nimwit, to do whatever I want to do in this country and I will do it unless and until you can CLEARLY demostrate that whatever I am doing is SUBSTANTIALLY damaging to my fellowman.

Equating smoking and drinking to the use, sale and distribution of substances such as heroin is so nearly moronic as to call the question of your sanity.

[Odin]

JT is such an idiot. He is part of what Sava and I call the Sheeple.

[Odin]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


That is a pretty idiotic statement. I am free, you nimwit, to do whatever I want to do in this country and I will do it unless and until you can CLEARLY demostrate that whatever I am doing is SUBSTANTIALLY damaging to my fellowman.

Equating smoking and drinking to the use, sale and distribution of substances such as heroin is so nearly moronic as to call the question of your sanity.

The only insane one here is you.

Go live in Singapore, thier fascist laws will change you mind really fast.

[Ming]

I think some people need to chill and stop with the personal insults... and if you don't, you might not like my solution.

[Capt Dizle]

Ming. You are right. I was getting a tad defensive. Kinda like being on the short end of a C3C Sid level dogpile. I truely will watch my mouth.

I think this debate is over anywho as I have cleared these misunderstandings up.

[Imran Siddiqui]

JT is such an idiot. He is part of what Sava and I call the Sheeple.

I find this statement ironic .

[Q Classic]

No, thats bull****. I am sick and tired of people's lives ruined by drugs.

agreed.

Many if not most of the people who are so shrill about their rights are people who have something to hide, their own drug use or whatever.

i love that generalization. i really do. i have nothing to hide. does that mean i feel comfortable with somebody looking over my shoulder at each and every juncture in case i might do some wrong?
the catholic church does enough of that, i don't need good old uncle sam to duplicate the feeling.
besides, what if they start legislating morality? don't think they won't do it, either: they have in the past, and morality isn't something that goes away.
simply put, i don't like the feeling that if i want to be private, i must have something to hide. even if i have nothing to hide, the mere fact that apparently i should feel guilty and not interested in my fellow man or democracy because i don't want my every move scrutinized and recorded is enormously uncomfortable and insulting.

I find it pitiful that people seek to hide their own lawlessness behind the cloak of liberty. It sickens me. I have the courage to open my affairs to the light of day. I am not afraid of scrutiny. I have in this one afternoon been branded a racist and called a Nazi simply because I have dared to voice my opinion. There is fear here and plenty of it but belongs to those who want to hide and point fingers and call names to divert attention from their own anti-social lifestyles.

liberty is not lawlessness.
lawlessness is not liberty.
those two do not equate, and shame on you for trying to link them.

and curt, why are you attacking someone on your own side?

[Edan]

Sorry to rain on your parade, but:

The part in question seems to predate the patriot act and 9/11:

As part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, Congress passed a comprehensive ban on the provision of "material support or resources" to entities that are designated by the United States Government as "foreign terrorist organizations."

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/91mcrm.htm

It also seems like something that will be fixed by making the language less vague and more specific so that it will "differentiate between impermissible advice on violence and encouraging the use of peaceful, nonviolent means to achieve goals."

On the the Patriot Act itself - I think there needs to be a balance between liberty and security. My opinion isn't that we should scrap it entirely, or that we should keep it as it is. I think we need to carefully inspect each provision of the act and see how it has or hasn't been used in the last two years and see what we can take from it thats good, change what needs to be changed and eliminate what has been bad. For every part of the act we need to ask: Has the provision been used at all in the last two years? If not, is there any concrete justification for keeping it? Has the provision been abused, or does it have a good risk of being abused? If so, put safeguards or limitations to prevent abused, or eliminate it. Has it produced positive results? How do the positives compare to the negatives in terms of cost vs payoff. Etc, etc.

Oh, and one final thing. The "Patriot Act" has to be the most pompous, stupid, annoying, self serving propogandic name I can remember in a long time. It make the name "Operation Enduring Freedom" sound good by comparison.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Edan
Sorry to rain on your parade, but:

The part in question seems to predate the patriot act and 9/11:

Ramo: Is this the same case or not? This would seem to point to the conclusion that it is.

[Ramo]

I guess AP lied...

[yavoon]

I will dance the mamba on the patriot acts grave

[Edan]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Ramo: Is this the same case or not? This would seem to point to the conclusion that it is.

Whoops - that'll teach me for not reading the entire thread.

I'm not sure if thats the same case or not, my point is that the law (or, possibly, an earlier, very simmilar version) existed before 9/11 - the problem here is not with the "Patriot Act" or with an overreaction due to 9/11. It's with a vague, poorly written law.

[Drake Tungsten]

A federal judge has declared unconstitutional a portion of the USA Patriot Act that bars giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated international terrorist organizations.

Why is this a good thing? Call me crazy, but I really don't want international terrorist organizations receiving expert advice and assistance...

[Ramo]

Err.. wait, what am I thinking? Eden, why do you say that this is the relevant clause being declared unconstitutional? I seem to recall that the Patriot Act has punishments for people who belong to/aid groups Ashcroft considers terrorists. And besides, the AP story mentions that it was part of the Patriot Act that was repealed (and this story has been picked up by everyone else). I don't think an article as erroneous as you suggest it is usually is able to get around so well.

[Ramo]

Why is this a good thing? Call me crazy, but I really don't want international terrorist organizations receiving expert advice and assistance..

These guys were trying to help make peace between Kurdish militants and the Turks. Are you seriously telling me that they deserve 15 years in prison?