03silversvt said:
Ha, Holy hell! I forgot about that!
Albino Midgets FTMFW!!!!
Patriot Act
- Thread starter RookieBeotch
- Start date
Ha, Holy hell! I forgot about that!
Albino Midgets FTMFW!!!!
zerocool said:
That would be me. :beer:
I'll only address the one subject the OP was asking about, as all the other side topics are very large debates upon themselves.
- If the Patriot Act is about safety, why are our borders at their weakest? Why is the I-35 corridor about to blast open for free, damned near unchecked traffic from Mexico?
- Although the Act expedites investigations, it leaves no checks for abuse. I have nothing to hide, so I am not worried about it personally, but if the system is somehow abused, the Patriot Act leaves no provision for citizens to defend themselves against this abuse, nor does it even give the accused the right to prove the abuse is even happening.
- Fallible humans are running the program. Humans under a government system that has always gone into the "gray". All the Patriot Act does is expand this "gray" around the black-and-white that is the Patriot Act, hence increasing the chances of abuse, and even bad intel from an overzealous agent.
vegaspackerfan said:
Study your history already.
This is called "appeasement". You either deal with it now, or ignore the problem and deal with it later when the problem is much bigger.
This is what happened with Germany in WWII. No one had the balls to stand up to Hilter, and by the time we did he had over run nearly all of Europe.
Iraq had taken out Kuwait without so much as a thought, and was setting their sites on Saudi Arabia. The reason he attacked Kuwait is because he owed Kuwait billions of dollars from the ten year war with Iran. Take over Kuwait and bam - instantly wipe out billions of dollars of debt. Saudi Arabia was next.
We could have just said "not our problem".
But there's a few problems with that. Both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are our allies. Then figure out what effect it would have when one man controls Iraq, Kuwait, AND Saudi Arabia. This is a Mustang forum already; We guzzle gas like there the sun isn't going to rise in the morning. I wonder how this board would react if our gas prices suddenly tripled because one man decided he wouldn't sell us our precious oil.
carrrnuttt said:
This is a great point.
Last year during my yearly trip to Mexico my friend's Hummer got stolen. Before the police report was filed in Mexico the truck was already discovered in San Diego - destroyed. All of the seats were ripped out and the windows were painted black so no one could see in. It takes me longer to cross the border legally with a passport than it does to drive across illegally.
Locking down our borders should be the first thing that we did after 9/11.
It wouldn't be difficult - although it would be expensive. Put up something like the Berlin Wall and have machine guns everywhere. Shoot anything that moves, and that's that.
Then again, look at Canada. That border is wide open too!
FordSVTFan said:
If you don't mind could you go a little more indepth in what you mean by that.
Rochard said:
Oh ya the problem that was built during the 80's. Ok now I see where you are coming from. Daddy helps start problem. Son becomes daddy's hero years later in an attempt to stop problem.
So now that we have taken the problem out. What are we going to do about all the other problems that have arisen and we have no answers for?
After 9-11 Schrub banged the drum for this war to the beat of "stop the terrorist", "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction", "we will be attacked again". Not we have to stop Sadam from attacking Saudi Arabia.
It is funny that the objective in this war has changed more times than the weather in Wisconsin. It's like the flavor of the week. Not one politician can give a reason for this war that is worth a pinch of shit.
VPF
RookieBeotch said:
Without giving a dissertation, between the INA and the Customs Act including border search authority, a lot of rights that people claim that are lost via the USA PATRIOT Act are actually just reiterated in a single document and are not new. Although the PATRIOT adds a few more, they have also been addressed in the AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) and the MCA (Military Commissions Act) of 2006.
The MCA basically removes the right to a Writ of Habeas Corpus, something that has been in since the Magna Carta in the year 1215.
FordSVTFan said:
What seems to be forgotten in this country is that Rights are natural, and cannot be granted, or taken by government, or man.
The Constitution does not grant rights, nor does it limit them. The only thing limited by the Constitution is government. Too bad Americans forgot that, just as the Founding Fathers feared would happen.
427Windsorman said:
While that might have been the intent in 1789, that isnt true any longer. Look at the 13th Amendment, look at the engtanglement and entwinement clauses and how the 14th amendment makes the Bill or Rights applicable to the states, state actions and certain private individuals.
FordSVTFan said:
I'm not trying to be a free loader here, but I took a look at some breif summaries of those bills and got a breif over view then tried diggin in deeper into the actual bill to try to find some of the same rights that people claim they lost in the PATRIOT Act and just got a little lost in the way they are organized. You seem real knowledgable and I was wondering if you could point me in the right direction.
SNCBOOM said:
First of all "intelligence gathering" is NOT an exact science. 2nd of all there are MANY ways that you gather intelligence. Thanks to the Clinton Administration our "humint" collection came to a screeching halt. Sat photos, arial photos, and sigint only tell PART of the story. Humint is absolutely vital to intel, Clinton decided there were too many "shady people" on the humint side of the house so he ordered the intelligence agencies to stop MOST forms of that collection. We had to then rely on foreign agencies for that type of intel. The other point I'd like to make is intel takes time to develop. It's not an over-night operation. You can't take a 5 minute snap-shot and KNOW what our enemies are up to and what their intentions are- not only that the raw data has to be analyzed and vetted- again not an exact science. Do we get it wrong sometimes- yes we do. We thought Saddam had INTACT wmd's at the time of the invasion- he didn't. He still had a lot of the materials available to be used in some of his facilities. IE various types of chemical and biological agents- they just weren't attached to a delivery system at the time so they weren't considered a WMD. Think of it as a car w/o an engine.
The other point I'd like to make is (contrary to what our freinds on the left will tell you) we are fighting an intelligent and determined enemy on a Global Scale. There are many cells, factions and organizations that mean to destroy us in all parts of the world to include some in the countries directly to our North and South. We have to be right 100% of the time to prevent attacks- they only have to be right once. And I hate to be the bearer of bad news- but it's not a matter of IF we'll be attacked agian- it's a matter of WHEN we'll be attacked again. Make no mistake- the threat is very real and it's only a matter of time.
This is why programs like this are so vital. We need the info real time to keep Americans safe. When there are Americans who help the enemy they need to be caught and prosecuted. That's what this program does. It doesn't violate anybodies "rights".
And VPF- do you really think that Saddam stopped trying to produce WMD's after the 80's. From what I've seen you seem like a fairly intelligent guy. Does this add up to you? Saddam was bent on controlling the middle east. The only way he knew how to do it was through violence or the threat of violence. It is well documented that he kept trying to produce nuclear weapons as well as chemical and biological weapons up until we invaded. During the first golf war Saddam realized in short order that he was getting his ass handed to him- so what did he do? He ordered his remaining Air Force to fly to Iran for safety purposes. (of course Iran kept all the planes) So according to you there is no way possible that Saddam would try to do the same thing with WMD'sknowing he was about to be invaded? Why didn't we attack Syria you ask. For one we went into Iraq based on UN counsel resolutions that determined Saddam had WMD's. There were no resolutions against Syria. Syria didn't directly threaten the United States. Iraq did. Syria didn't invade a neighbor in recent years. Iraq did. Syria hasn't used WMD's. Iraq did.
But I realize that nothing will ever take away from your beliefs so all of my arguements, however valid, are moot. Believe what you want.
Last edited:
+1RDJ said:
RookieBeotch said:
All of the references I made are to Acts, not Bills. They are enacted and are the law.
What direction are you looking to be pointed in?
Mach1USMC said:
Some might disagree with your first statement...LOL... My point was if we knew that the WMD's were being sent to Syria. We should have went and got them. Harboring them form us is just as bad as making them IMO.
We are fighting a war against an enemie that has no remorse or value for human life. Our government is putting our men women and Marines at a great dis advantage by having them fight this war they way we are. We either have to be in ti to win it at all expenses or get the F out.
BTW thank you for your service. :beer: I have friends who have served and died as US marines for our great country.
VPF
Last edited:
RDJ said:
Or we could attack the cause of the problem, by shuffling a few upper class Saudis and Syrians loose the mortal coil rather than risk this: http://www.mises.org/TRTS/Mario93 said:
vegaspackerfan said:
VPF- It is my pleasure to serve. Most of us in the service love what we do- so you are very welcome. I wouldn't have it any other way.
While I disagree with not following what appeared to be a very clear trail of where the WMD's "potentially" went (keeping in mind intel is almost never100%) But I do understand it. There was far more evidence that there were WMD's still in Iraq. This was based on all the facts available at the time. I still think there may be some there- keep in mind Saddam suffessfully hid SCUDS (sometimes in plain sight) for most of the first gulf war. The terrain in Iraq is incredibly varied and it's very easy to hide or obscure things there. Even the people who developed these weapons thought they were still there. We followed the trail of chemicals and other materials from Germany, France and Russia (to name a few. ) into Iraq- that's most certainly not in dispute. We have documents on weapons development as well as the people who developed them saying the weapons were there in vast quantities. My point is instead of condemning Bush and Blair for "jumping the gun" why aren't we asking where these weapons went? They do exist- we just aren't sure where. I presonally believe by now they've been sold on the black market and are in the hands of terrorists cells around the world. Do I have physical evidence to prove this theory? No- other than the sat photos of log trains going from Iraq to Syria that were broadcast about a month before the war on CNN, Foxnews etc.
The war we are fighting is different than any war we've been in since the birth of our nation. For one, our enemy is 300-400 million strong and have many nationalities and locations. The other problem is this "small" group of fanatics wil do anything and everything in their power to destroy us no matter where we are. Whether it's in Iraq, Afghanistan, the streets of NYC or on our southern and northern borders it's there and it's pervasive. The situation is this though- they will persue the west no matter what we do. There is no choice to be made here. We are in this war no matter what we WANT to do (interestingly enough this war has been going on for decades- we just haven't been paying attention). We don't have the option of NOT fighting. These religous fanatics must be killed because that is the only way we can stop them- that is most certainly their intent towards us.
FordSVTFan said:
I'm trying to prove that the PATRIOT Act should remain and is neccesary you posted that their are some act's already in place that is similar to the PATRIOT Act and covers some of the same things, I attempted to dig into them but could not find the details of what they both cover and what was already law. Sorry about the terminology, and thanks for the help so far, I realize this might not all be off the top of your head so don't worry about it too much.
I can tell you one real life instance that the patriot act effects us. I work at a credit union and we have to identify all of our members by getting a picture ID and social security number from them, along with other info due to the patriot act. This may make it bit more difficult for us but is better in the long run because it is easier determine if someone is doing criminal activity and who they are in the event a wrong act is done.
Users who are viewing this thread
