Patriot Act...

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 15, 2003, 5:51 pm

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... ror_laws_2

EXACTLY what the opponents to this bill had predicted is coming true..

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » September 15, 2003, 5:54 pm

Evil bastard - I work at a Bank, so US PATRIOT is a pain in my ass here at work. Now it's on my escape.

Mort · Post by **Mort** » September 15, 2003, 5:59 pm

Ooohhh Shit! Small time bomb makers and meth dealers are going to prison for longer.....

/shucks

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » September 15, 2003, 5:59 pm

"Within six months of passing the Patriot Act, the Justice Department was conducting seminars on how to stretch the new wiretapping provisions to extend them beyond terror cases," said Dan Dodson, a spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. "They say they want the Patriot Act to fight terrorism, then, within six months, they are teaching their people how to use it on ordinary citizens."

Didn't see that coming

Isn't this a time limited bill?

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » September 15, 2003, 6:00 pm

Prosecutor Jerry Wilson says he isn't abusing the law, which defines chemical weapons of mass destruction as "any substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury" and contains toxic chemicals.

So what about drano and other things under the sink, are we gonna bomb factories?

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 15, 2003, 6:06 pm

Mort wrote:Ooohhh Shit! Small time bomb makers and meth dealers are going to prison for longer.....

/shucks

It's the means they are using to jail them for longer. The ends does not justify the means. The bill is being abused, pure and simple. Drugs are not chemical weapons, I mean come on. A pipe bomb a weapon of mass destruction.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 15, 2003, 6:07 pm

Sionistic wrote:
Prosecutor Jerry Wilson says he isn't abusing the law, which defines chemical weapons of mass destruction as "any substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury" and contains toxic chemicals.
So what about drano and other things under the sink, are we gonna bomb factories?

Once again, it's the fucking laywers. Figures.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » September 15, 2003, 6:10 pm

The sooner we kill all the lawyers, the sooner utopia can become a reality.

Kudo · Post by **Kudo** » September 15, 2003, 6:51 pm

lets just hope they dont extend "Weapons of mass destruction" to firecrackers~ har

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 15, 2003, 6:54 pm

Mort wrote:Ooohhh Shit! Small time bomb makers and meth dealers are going to prison for longer.....

/shucks

I'm so glad I'm not you.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 15, 2003, 7:06 pm

hurraj the banana is back!

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » September 15, 2003, 8:21 pm

So they're using it to also include harsher penalties for meth makers and guys that carry around pipebombs? A good pipebomb - while not a weapon of mass destruction - can still kill OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of people.

I'm not seeing the reason to complain on this. If you're not breaking the law, then you shouldn't have a huge problem with it... right?

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 15, 2003, 8:27 pm

I don't break any laws yet I have a problem with it.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » September 16, 2003, 12:31 am

Akaran_D wrote:So they're using it to also include harsher penalties for meth makers and guys that carry around pipebombs? A good pipebomb - while not a weapon of mass destruction - can still kill OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of people.

I'm not seeing the reason to complain on this. If you're not breaking the law, then you shouldn't have a huge problem with it... right?

The basic justification of the law was to combat terrorism, not to allow the government to bypass it's citizen's rights in non-terrorist related situations.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » September 16, 2003, 10:59 am

The vagueness of the Patriot Act allows the government to go into ANYONE'S home and declare them a terrorist. Hell they don't even have to charge them with a crime and they have the right to seize your property. I guarantee I could go into anyone's home and find the chemicals or equipment needed to make some kind of explosive or deadly gas.

The police like to blow things like this out of proportion all the time. They will go into someones house and find a container of nail polish remover, candle wax and a cigarette lighter and declare the house a bomb factory. Throw in a couple spoons from the kitchen drawer and you got a drug paraphernalia charges as well.

I weep for the future. Viva le revolucion!!

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » September 16, 2003, 11:34 am

Akaran that is a pretty shortsighted statement.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » September 16, 2003, 12:21 pm

Is it?
Is using an act designed to jail and put away those who wish to cause harm to the US and/or its citizens to put away lower key criminals (who do not fall under the accepted deffintion of "terrorist") for longer periods of time a bad thing?

In Dewards example, yes, I would have a big issue with it. But has there been evidence that that is the cause, or that it has been used to do somthing such as that? This is an honest question. If there has been any, I have not seen any notification of it from any of the news sites I gather information from, nor have I heard it mentioned here (and I doubt that we would hold back on it if we did).

Skogen:

Drugs are not chemical weapons, I mean come on. A pipe bomb a weapon of mass destruction.

Two things. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't England use drugs - such as Opium deriviates(sp) to assist them in pacifying parts of India and attempted to do the same in China? That sounds like a chemical weapont o me.. or a pacification tool. Yes, it's out of context here, but the deffinition fits. Chemical weapons are designed to kill people - a drug overdose would be death by a chemical, wouldn't it?

Second thing. A pipe bomb is a weapon of moderate destruction. At what point to you go from moderate to mass? How many people have to die before a weapon is considered one tht can cause mass destruction? Does it have to be all at once, or can it be over time? And what purporse do you use a pipe bomb for.. if not to blow people and objects up? Is terror the primary reason for this? Maybe. Is terror a secondary reason? Again, maybe - it depends on the reasoning behind the person who makes it at the time. Will people be scared? If you're NOT scared when some nutjob blows a pipebomb filled with, oh, nails - remember the olympic park? - you're made of sterner stuff than most. If I remember correctly, some of the fatalities in that came directly from heart attacks caused by people being scared.

Did OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of people die? No. Is it still a device used to cause physical harm to the immedate objects nearby and inflict casualities upon any person within it's blast radius, as well as cause secondary effects such as panic and structural damage? Yeap.

Forthe Wrote:
The basic justification of the law was to combat terrorism

Terrorism comes in many shapes and sizes. Everything from the bully that threatens the gradeschool wimp (he's terrorizing him, right?) to the guy trying to get ahold of a suitcase nuke to detonate in LA. You have homegrown and global terrorism. A guy with a pipebomb who grew up in Utah that wants to blow up the local post office is a terrorist.. or a couple guys that run a van full of manure into an Oklahoma government building.

The very deffinition of terrorism itself (from http://www.webster.com) is:
Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1795
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
- ter·ror·ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun
- ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective

The loosness of that term in and of itself - I shoot 5 chefs over the course of a week to convince the cafeteria the food is horrible, that fits the deffinition, doesn't it? - allows for these broad uses of the law itself.

When the law is abused to the point that people who are innocent of any charges levied against them are incarcerated, that's where the issue is and should be mentioned. But while the law is used to lock up people that are violating city, county, state and national laws for longer periods of time than the normal (and generally lax) maxium time periods for incarceration are used? I'm not going to shed a tear.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » September 16, 2003, 12:43 pm

The fact that you have to write such a massive amount of justification containing definitions stretched to breaking point and beyond is the clue.

School bullys are terrorists? Where do I even start on a comparison like that?

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 16, 2003, 12:45 pm

Akaran, your entire post just stresses my feeling on how fucking ridiculous it is. Splitting hairs & playing the definition game, and taking advatange on vagueness is exactly whats wrong with the Patriot Act.

Don't be an idiot. You know damn well what is meant by a terrorist, or what a weapon of mass destruction is, and what a chemical weapon is, and how they are used, and how the Patriot Act should be implemented to deal with them.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » September 16, 2003, 12:55 pm

Akaran_D wrote: a drug overdose would be death by a chemical, wouldn't it?

I can cause death by lighting a fire. Matchsticks are teh debil!

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » September 16, 2003, 1:21 pm

Akaran, your entire post just stresses my feeling on how fucking ridiculous it is. Splitting hairs & playing the definition game, and taking advatange on vagueness is exactly whats wrong with the Patriot Act.

Welcome to law school.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » September 16, 2003, 1:21 pm

Two things. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't England use drugs - such as Opium deriviates(sp) to assist them in pacifying parts of India and attempted to do the same in China? That sounds like a chemical weapont o me.. or a pacification tool. Yes, it's out of context here, but the deffinition fits. Chemical weapons are designed to kill people - a drug overdose would be death by a chemical, wouldn't it?

rofl. Is it your contention that England used opium as a weapon of mass destruction against India? And that Indians died from opium overdose?

lol.

Do you realize how utterly idiotic you sound?

I got a new definition of terrorist:

ter·ror·ist n. Any of the following: drug dealers, murderers, rapists, theives, gangsters, drunk drivers, domestic abusers, gays, homeless people, cripples, blacks, jews and muslims.

I'm a terrorist!!! OMG report me to teh authorities!

masteen · Post by **masteen** » September 16, 2003, 1:49 pm

Xyun wrote:I got a new definition of terrorist:

ter·ror·ist n. Any of the following: drug dealers, murderers, rapists, theives, gangsters, drunk drivers, domestic abusers, gays, homeless people, cripples, blacks, jews and muslims.

Apparently, I am a convicted terrorist as well.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » September 16, 2003, 2:07 pm

Me too

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » September 16, 2003, 2:12 pm

im not a terrorist yaaaaaaaayy

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 16, 2003, 3:35 pm

Xyun wrote:I got a new definition of terrorist:

ter·ror·ist n. Any of the following: drug dealers, murderers, rapists, theives, gangsters, drunk drivers, domestic abusers, gays, homeless people, cripples, blacks, jews and muslims.

You forgot school bullies and liberals.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » September 16, 2003, 3:39 pm

Xyun:

Is it your contention that England used opium as a weapon of mass destruction against India?

There's no reason you can't you call a weapon of mass subversion one of mass destruction, is there? You're destroying the infastructure of a country, be it through nonviolent means - but you're still destroying it.

Skogen:

You know damn well what is meant by a terrorist, or what a weapon of mass destruction is, and what a chemical weapon is, and how they are used, and how the Patriot Act should be implemented to deal with them.

Where do you draw the line between mass and minor destruction? How many bodies or how much property damage does it take to fall under that deffinition? How many people have to die by chemical inhalation / absorbtion / other methods of delivery?

How would You write the Act to deal with them? What would be your decision, if you had the power to do it?

Tanc:

The fact that you have to write such a massive amount of justification containing definitions stretched to breaking point and beyond is the clue.

Because the deffintions themselves are that loose you can stretch it to cover just about anything - which is the biggest problem of the Act, but I figure, part of the reason they were included in it. If that means that lower end crimes are being hit harder, why is this a problem?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 16, 2003, 3:48 pm

You are the kind of person that is the reason a fucking jackass like Bush is president.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » September 16, 2003, 3:57 pm

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » September 16, 2003, 4:07 pm

I voted for him, so I hope so.
I don't agree with everything he does - expecially some of this recent bulldrek - but I think he's doing a better job than Gore would have.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » September 16, 2003, 4:17 pm

Akaran_D wrote:Because the deffintions themselves are that loose you can stretch it to cover just about anything - which is the biggest problem of the Act, but I figure, part of the reason they were included in it. If that means that lower end crimes are being hit harder, why is this a problem?

Because those *alleged* lower end criminals are citizens, remember innocent until proven guilty and such. If the government can twist these laws to get around the rights of these citizens on the basis of a simple allegation they can also do it to you.

Hasn't the Iraq WMD fiasco taught you to be skeptical at least? Open your eyes.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » September 16, 2003, 4:23 pm

kyoukan wrote:You are the kind of person that is the reason a fucking jackass like Bush is president.

He is a 70+ year old retard that can't punch a hole in a ballot next to the correct name? Every ballot should have some sort of challenge to it so that the mentally deficient retards that tend to reside in this country can have their ballots thrown out.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » September 16, 2003, 4:25 pm

Akaran, I just wouldn't even implement the Patriot Act. A simple Risk vs. Reward study leads me to that decision.
then on to the next idea...

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » September 17, 2003, 2:01 am

There's no reason you can't you call a weapon of mass subversion one of mass destruction, is there? You're destroying the infastructure of a country, be it through nonviolent means - but you're still destroying it.

the difference between the two is phenomenal. Just because you don't understand the difference, it does not mean one does not exist. You are saying that opium is a weapon of mass destruction, dude. Opium!

Maybe you can somehow twist the definition of a weapon of mass destruction to include opium, but definitions are mostly relative, and to you, maybe opium is a weapon. But to me, you are arguing that the sky is red, based on your definition of red. The sky may very well be red to you, but to the rest of the world, it is blue. When a definition is vague, it can be interpreted in several ways. However, I do not think that the definition of weapon is so vague that it includes opium.

Most people have the mental capacity to discern for themselves what is meant by a definition of a word or a phrase. Maybe you lack this capacity or maybe you choose to ignore it. What I do know is that when we cannot agree on how to communicate, we cannot communicate. You are abusing semantics. This is usually a tactic used by a debater when logic has failed them. At this point, it's pointless to continue the argument because I have already won.

ps. you are a blithering dotard.

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » September 17, 2003, 3:08 am

He is a 70+ year old retard that can't punch a hole in a ballot next to the correct name? Every ballot should have some sort of challenge to it so that the mentally deficient retards that tend to reside in this country can have their ballots thrown out.

If you really buy into the improper votes = retard spiel, then you moreorless are saying that black people are 20+ times more likely to be retards than whites are.

I suppose little details such as the predominantly white, conservative voting districts (in Florida) had voting office workers who would inpsect your ballot to see if your marks or chads were properly done before being submitted. Ironically enough, no such efforts were made on behalf of the predominantly black districts (who incidentally enough, tend to overwhelmingly vote Democrat).

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » September 17, 2003, 8:09 am

Xyun, I'm not abusing semantics, I'm trying to make a point, one that noone has yet answered. What is the accepted deffinition of a weapon of mass destruction? Someone spiking a water tower with a few vials of (insert lesser known viral or chemical agent here) that kills 5.. 10.. 100.. 500.. at what point does that become a WoMD? Even better, at what point does it constitute a terrorist act?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 17, 2003, 8:14 am

i think its good because its the patriot act and im a patriot and go usa i think if everyone was patriotec like our presidetn misterGEROGE BUSH who valliently fights the terriorisits and anything patriot is ok with me

also dirt is totaly a wepon of massive destrucktion because you could totaly like burry allot of ppl in teh ground if u had allot of dirt

ok byue

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » September 17, 2003, 8:36 am

When you are talking definitions, you are talking semantics. The core argument here is that a law put in place to combat terrorists only, as the nation was led to believe, should not be used to combat citizens, be they criminals or not, of this country.

Your argument that there is nothing wrong with using this law to combat criminals is only valid if A) the objective of the law was to combat common criminals as well as terrorists (which we know not to be true) or B) Common criminals are all terrorists and therefore susceptible to the punishments under this law. This is simply not true but you are using semantics to give it as much validity as you can.

Now, maybe you are right that we need a better definition of a terrorist, but I refuse to accept that thieves and drug dealers and gangsters are terrorists. These people's motives for crime is not to kill innocent people to create unrest, it is usually to make money.

I just can't understand your complete willingness to live in a police state, nor do I expect you to comprehend the meaning of what I just said.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » September 17, 2003, 9:00 am

The nation was led to beleive that Clinton didn't get a hummer in the oval office.

Since when does "led to beleive" matter for dick in American politics?

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » September 17, 2003, 9:24 am

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » September 17, 2003, 12:43 pm

If you're a nation of people who are happy for laws to be abused and misapplied as long as "it only affects the bad guys" then you will, i'm sure, get what you deserve.

I don't know what's more alarming. The situation or the fact that said situation is completely failing to concern you people.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » September 17, 2003, 1:09 pm

I don't know what's more alarming. The situation or the fact that said situation is completely failing to concern you people.

If this were true, then you wouldn't be seeing the ongoing debate about it. Obviously some people support it, but others do not, many of which have been pretty vocal in their objections (talking about the debate in larger media terms, not just here on the vault).

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » September 17, 2003, 1:20 pm

Akaran, I'm going to ignore the fact that you're completely blind to the philosophical future ramifications of the patriot act and just focus on your question: why is that a bad thing?

Well, mostly because it's been proven that harsh sentencing does jack shit to deter or prevent crime. Supply and demand: If you put a meth manufacturer away, people still want meth, so someone else will start manufacturing it instead.

Not to mention that giving drug dealers ridiculously inflated sentences into the tens and twenties of years while corporate vandals get 5 years in minimum security increases the class gap and increases class anger.

And the fact that you can get 2 years for a rape and 20 years for dealing drugs under the pretense of being a terrorist really shows some fucked up priorities.

I'm sure I could go on, or elaborate, if you want.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » September 17, 2003, 2:15 pm

....focus on your question: why is that a bad thing?

Well, mostly because it's been proven that harsh sentencing does jack shit to deter or prevent crime. Supply and demand: If you put a meth manufacturer away, people still want meth, so someone else will start manufacturing it instead.

Not to mention that giving drug dealers ridiculously inflated sentences into the tens and twenties of years while corporate vandals get 5 years in minimum security increases the class gap and increases class anger.

And the fact that you can get 2 years for a rape and 20 years for dealing drugs under the pretense of being a terrorist really shows some fucked up priorities.

I'm sure I could go on, or elaborate, if you want.

Actually, I agree with you.
I hadn't looked at it in the way you just presented it, thank you.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » September 17, 2003, 2:33 pm

*Cheer*

Anytime.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » September 18, 2003, 5:04 am

The vagueness of the Patriot Act allows the government to go into ANYONE'S home and declare them a terrorist.

Exactly what part of the Patriot Act allows this?

I am no fan of it, for sure, but that statement was simply absurd. THere are real problems with the Act, but that is not one of them. At any rate, the people focusing on the Act are looking at the wrong boogyman. The real problems here are 1. Ashcroft's administration of the Justice Department and 2. The Bereau of Homeland Security. The injustices done to our civil liberties by those two entities have and will continue to far surpass any harm resulting from the Act.

Sueven,
Similarly, while I could not agree more with the substance of what you said, again the focus is on the wrong thing. People have been getting extremely disproportionate sentances for drug related crimes for 2 decades now. The Act is not the cause of this. The sorce of these sentances comes promarily from 3 sources 1. the continuing and badly misguided policies enacted as part of "The war on Drugs", 2. BATF regulations and enhanced criminal penalities from crimes committed "while using" firearms, and most significantly 3. the nationwide proliferatin of "Three Strikes" laws when combined with the excessive MANDATORY penalties for drug crimes (in most States, and under Federal Jurisdiction, prosecutors are prohibited from pleaing drug cases of some fairly minor nature below felony limits when the amount of the drugs involved exceeds some very small thresholds).

That is really the kicker. The effective use of prosecutorial discretion allowed in almost all areas other than drugs prevents both excesssive sentencing for certain criminal acts AND the compounded problem of the mandatory sentancing (often extreme) for repeat offenders. Now, the true problem is not really the "Three-Strikes" laws, because these laws are, IMO, good policy when prosecutorial discretion is allowed in judging the nature of any individual crime. But combined with the manadtory sentancing for drugs, and all your get people with life sentances for some very minor aggregate offenses.

Again, big problem, but the Act has nothing to do with it.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » September 18, 2003, 10:21 am

If anyone has ever talked to a drug dealer before (I have) you will know that the last thing they want to do is kill potential customers. If because of bad drugs they do so then yes throw the fucking book at them. Being a libertarian, I believe anyone has the right to poison their body anyway they want. It is their body and the government isn't your fucking nanny. If you do meth and then go kill someone driving your car then yes send them to jail for a long time but don't call it a weapon of mass destruction.

What I don't like about the patriot act is that it gives the government the right to spy on it's own people, without cause! What gives the government the right to look at what books I check out from the library?

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » September 18, 2003, 11:45 am

Why do you care if the government looks at what books you take out of the library?

The government could count the number of sheets of charmin I use to wipe my ass off with if they want.. it doesn't exactly matter, does it?

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » September 18, 2003, 11:49 am

Akaran_D wrote:Why do you care if the government looks at what books you take out of the library?

The government could count the number of sheets of charmin I use to wipe my ass off with if they want.. it doesn't exactly matter, does it?

That may be your preference, but many many people in the U.S. want privacy. They want thier civil rights. No one wants to live with Big Brother staring over thier shoulder.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » September 18, 2003, 11:51 am

Why do you care if the government looks at what books you take out of the library?

Because it's none of their fucking business. And letting them look at your book lists so they can tag people as terrorists, or undesirables, or sympathizers is something you should not allow your government to do.
Oh, but they'll only target "bad people" so it doesn't matter, right?

The government could count the number of sheets of charmin I use to wipe my ass off with if they want.. it doesn't exactly matter, does it?

Hey you might not have a problem with spooks looking through your khazi window and counting but practically EVERYONE ELSE IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM would. Again, none of their fucking business and an intrusion on privacy.
What happens when they form a correlation between Charmin-3-sheet-wipers and "terrorist sympathizing", or decide your diet + your ass = weapon of mass destruction and come knocking on your door?