In the US we value you our freedom...we don't want a repressive government.LJS9502_basicTell that to the Patriot Act.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
In the US we value you our freedom...we don't want a repressive government.LJS9502_basicTell that to the Patriot Act.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] In the US we value you our freedom...we don't want a repressive government.Ninja-HippoTell that to the Patriot Act. No need to fear it if one is not a terrorist.
[QUOTE="psychobrew"]
Burning a book or calling someone a name isn't putting anyone's life at risk. People that riot over the act are. It's those people who overreact that should be arrested (if they physically harm someone).
If you know it will cause people to riot then you arrest the source of the problem, not the effect.
So why havent we arrested the Westboro Baptist church here in USA? Arresting people for burning a book is against freedom or expression[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] In the US we value you our freedom...we don't want a repressive government.LJS9502_basicTell that to the Patriot Act. No need to fear it if one is not a terrorist. Isn't this kind of a tom-a-toe/tom-ah-toe kind of thing? Both restrict rights and freedoms in the name of security.
I can't wait for this horrible law to be over-turned, which was only put in place in the first place because the Labour government wanted to win back some muslim votes after the Iraq war. The new government should get rid of it any week now. :) Ninja-Hippo
When you get rid of the terrorism act and such come back to me.
[QUOTE="Espada12"][QUOTE="psychobrew"]
Burning a book or calling someone a name isn't putting anyone's life at risk. People that riot over the act are. It's those people who overreact that should be arrested (if they physically harm someone).
Stanley09
If you know it will cause people to riot then you arrest the source of the problem, not the effect.
So why havent we arrested the Westboro Baptist church here in USA? Arresting people for burning a book is against freedom or expressionBecause you live in America. Even though everyone was against it, they could do nothing about it in the name of freedom. Though in the end they did try to exhaust ever legal outlet they could find to get around the whole freedom thing, but with no success.
No need to fear it if one is not a terrorist. Isn't this kind of a tom-a-toe/tom-ah-toe kind of thing? Both restrict rights and freedoms in the name of security. It expanded on already existing procedures.....and border security. Nothing too drastic. What do you find to be heinous?[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] Tell that to the Patriot Act. mattbbpl
No need to fear it if one is not a terrorist.LJS9502_basicIsn't this kind of a tom-a-toe/tom-ah-toe kind of thing? Both restrict rights and freedoms in the name of security. It expanded on already existing procedures.....and border security. Nothing too drastic. What do you find to be heinous? Unwarranted wire tapping is one that concerns me, but the more troubling issue I see is the ability to indefinitely detain individuals witthout any charges.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"] Isn't this kind of a tom-a-toe/tom-ah-toe kind of thing? Both restrict rights and freedoms in the name of security.It expanded on already existing procedures.....and border security. Nothing too drastic. What do you find to be heinous? Unwarranted wire tapping is one that concerns me, but the more troubling issue I see is the ability to indefinitely detain individuals witthout any charges.Both of which would not apply to law abiding citizens......and FYI....there has always been unwarranted wire tapping anyway. However, it eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering. The difference is in the ability to monitor foreign communication. This has you concerned....why?mattbbpl
Unwarranted wire tapping is one that concerns me, but the more troubling issue I see is the ability to indefinitely detain individuals witthout any charges.Both of which would not apply to law abiding citizens......and FYI....there has always been unwarranted wire tapping anyway. However, it eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering. The difference is in the ability to monitor foreign communication. This has you concerned....why? You see no problem with skirting due process and jailing someone indefinitely without any charges? If innocent people don't have to worry about it, then why don't they simply charge the individuals, sentence them, and then hold them in prison for the duration of the sentence?Even when people are formally charged and tried, innocent people are found guilty and sentenced. Why would I put faith in something that makes it even more likely for innocent people to be held in prison?[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] It expanded on already existing procedures.....and border security. Nothing too drastic. What do you find to be heinous?LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Both of which would not apply to law abiding citizens......and FYI....there has always been unwarranted wire tapping anyway. However, it eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering. The difference is in the ability to monitor foreign communication. This has you concerned....why? You see no problem with skirting due process and jailing someone indefinitely without any charges? If innocent people don't have to worry about it, then why don't they simply charge the individuals, sentence them, and then hold them in prison for the duration of the sentence?Even when people are formally charged and tried, innocent people are found guilty and sentenced. Why would I put faith in something that makes it even more likely for innocent people to be held in prison?That's not new though. Habeas corpus has often times been suspended during extraordinary times.[QUOTE="mattbbpl"] Unwarranted wire tapping is one that concerns me, but the more troubling issue I see is the ability to indefinitely detain individuals witthout any charges.mattbbpl
[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Both of which would not apply to law abiding citizens......and FYI....there has always been unwarranted wire tapping anyway. However, it eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering. The difference is in the ability to monitor foreign communication. This has you concerned....why?You see no problem with skirting due process and jailing someone indefinitely without any charges? If innocent people don't have to worry about it, then why don't they simply charge the individuals, sentence them, and then hold them in prison for the duration of the sentence?LJS9502_basic
Even when people are formally charged and tried, innocent people are found guilty and sentenced. Why would I put faith in something that makes it even more likely for innocent people to be held in prison?
That's not new though. Habeas corpus has often times been suspended during extraordinary times.And the Patriot Act removes the "during extraordinary times" part....
That's not new though. Habeas corpus has often times been suspended during extraordinary times.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"] You see no problem with skirting due process and jailing someone indefinitely without any charges? If innocent people don't have to worry about it, then why don't they simply charge the individuals, sentence them, and then hold them in prison for the duration of the sentence?
Even when people are formally charged and tried, innocent people are found guilty and sentenced. Why would I put faith in something that makes it even more likely for innocent people to be held in prison?mattbbpl
And the Patriot Act removes the "during extraordinary times" part....
It does not apply to domestic crime. And it's nothing new. "The November 13, 2001 Presidential Military Order purported to give the President of the United States the power to detain non-citizens suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism as enemy combatants" "The Court affirmed the basic principle that habeas corpus could not be revoked in the case of a citizen." Enemy combatants are considered prisoners of war by the way....[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Both of which would not apply to law abiding citizens......and FYI....there has always been unwarranted wire tapping anyway. However, it eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering. The difference is in the ability to monitor foreign communication. This has you concerned....why?You see no problem with skirting due process and jailing someone indefinitely without any charges? If innocent people don't have to worry about it, then why don't they simply charge the individuals, sentence them, and then hold them in prison for the duration of the sentence?LJS9502_basic
Even when people are formally charged and tried, innocent people are found guilty and sentenced. Why would I put faith in something that makes it even more likely for innocent people to be held in prison?
That's not new though. Habeas corpus has often times been suspended during extraordinary times.And those frame the darkest parts of our history.. We should not use this as a excuse to continue this what so ever.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment