The Patriot Act

So now you're saying they dont deserve the right to a fail trial, lawyer and all?

Do you hate freedom or something?

You're missing the point. How is DEFENDING oneself in court equal to GETTING LAWS REPEALED / PASSED.

These are obviously two seperate topics of discussion, something you cant seem to grasp. The paragraph you posted says nothing about the topic of the said trail, only NAMBLAs mission statement.

NAMBLA seeks to have all age of consent laws abolished then have molestation be acceptable. even the physchologist organization is review their stance on the issue.

[QUOTE="goldenpony"]

Sex offenders have the highest rate of recommitting their crime than any other criminal. There has been far more cases of a sex offender getting out of jail and then doing it all over again. The facts back this up, so why shouldn't we protect the children from scum like these?

It is a sad fact of society that we have to face.

dragon_warrior8

Well how will making them live a bit farther away change anything? Like on the Dateline NBC "to catch a predator" show, most of them were willing to drive several hours just for one kid. How is making them live 1000ft from a school going to change anything?

To be 100% honest, no keeping them away more than likely won't stop them. But allowing them to live right next door is no answer either. Is there a good answer? Is there a way to protect both the children and protect criminal's rights as well? No, there is no way to balance out these two.

This is a hot topic and of course that only makes the two sides of it more polarized. There is no answer to help both sides. No possible way to make everyone happy. Sure the criminal served his time and should now be allowed back into society. But, in reality, they are not brought back in. Society has the right to protect itself from people/circumstances which it considers dangerous.

This debate is way off target and will never be settled. People on side A feel strong in their feelings. People on side B feel strong on their side and they will never meet in the middle.

Corrupt? Corrupt like Rupert Murdoch empire? Corrupt like the Bush administration?

This isint even an issue for the ACLU nowadays. They're far too busy defending our liberties from this useless administration bent of defending our country from the problems they keep causing.

Nice assumption thar!

I supported Bush in 2000 and in 2004, and i'm no fan of Hillary either. And I hate FOXbecause of its horrible unprofessional journalism and the fact that its essentially a news station for white males.

This country is going to pieces, due to nothnig short of NAFTA, the current administration, wal-mart, and religious fundies.

So, how many terrorist attacks have actually been foiled since the goverment began spying on us?

I'd love to know.

Does anyone have stairs in their house?

Does anyone have stairs in their house?

[QUOTE="hojobojo"][QUOTE="Devils_Joker_22"][QUOTE="hojobojo"]

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]People's own rights = survivalism like I mentioned before. Some guy makes his own rights to break in people's houses to kill and steal from others. There's a world for ya without Nationalism.Boostinsane

No.. that sounds more like anarchy to me...

Sounds kinda fun. Am i the only person who would enjoy the thrill of a world when natural selection acctually exists? I wouldnt wanna live in it, but it would still be really cool to experience. Like a zombie appocolypse but the zombies are just other pissed off people.

Lol?
anyways that is world without a government.. was I talking about a world without government? No I was saying there would be a single nation - single government on Earth.

here it is again.

it starts with theNORTH AMERICAN UNION. then all the unions will combine and create one central governement, one central banking system which equals ultimate control and power over the people of the world.

Here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuBo4E77ZXo

holy crap.... im too shocked to say anything...is that video real?

It's not a drastic change and I fully support it. Anyone that believes that the Patriot Act would turn America into some type of coersive, totalitariaism is crazy in my opinion. And believe me, there are some out there.LikeHaterade

When a government official doesn't read the law he is required to either support or oppose that is the first step to turning into the state you listed as crazy thought. Restricting the use of Habeus Corpus is another. No checks or balances in the pursuit of security is a third. The Patriot Act has all the hallmarks of turning this country into such a crazy place, those who fail to see it are blind.

Presidential candidates were recently asked if they felt that it was proper to defend human rights in the face of national security. What was truly odd was that the expected response that it was not proper to defend human rights in the face of national security. Other nations that feel this way are Pakistan and Russia. A free and open society feels it is the human rights that are the priority, it is exactly those human rights that make us the society we are. Infringing on them will turn this nation into a totalitarian society.

If you truly feel that restricting this human liberty is vital to national security ask yourself why the US doesn't keep track of people leaving the country, nor do they keep track of foreign nationals within the country. How secure are we really making it if we are only doing half the job?

Freedom is what makes the country great. Limiting that only limits our greatness.

[QUOTE="hojobojo"]Anything with word Patriot is bad..Xx_CYC756_xX

Patriot - a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.

Remind me, how is this bad?

Patriotism just creates divisions. They're different from us... we're better than them etc. At the end of the day it's all about ego stroking, especially in America's case. Why be patriotic? Why only love your country and the people in it? What's wrong with everyone else?

[QUOTE="Xx_CYC756_xX"]

[QUOTE="hojobojo"]Anything with word Patriot is bad..bradleybhoy

Patriot - a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.

Remind me, how is this bad?

Patriotism just creates divisions. They're different from us... we're better than them etc. At the end of the day it's all about ego stroking, especially in America's case. Why be patriotic? Why only love your country and the people in it? What's wrong with everyone else?

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]How is something evil when it was created to protect innocent lives? Boostinsane

it wasn't created to protect innocent lives. it was created by the governement at the wake of 9/11 as an excuse to spy on it's citizens w/out a warrent and sometimes even to imprison them for a certain amount of time w/out any evidence to justify their imprisonment. it's contents are vague and open for explotation and possible government coersion.

the government would do it anyway this just means they get it done faster.

shut up and take it.

If you're not a terrorist, and you're not doing illegal things, who cares. None of you have been affected by the Patriot Act. I believe it's part of the reason we haven't been attacked since 9/11. I could be wrong, but either way, I see no reason to revoke it.Rhythmic_

If you're a terrorist and you're doing illegal things then why isn't a trial enough? What happened to EVIDENCE? It's not as if without the patriot act terrorists would be above the law and able to blow up things indiscriminately.

I mean to use the patriot act you'd have to be aware of said terrorist's presence, so why can't the US government with all its "intelligence" and technology not gather evidence on theterrorists planning an attack and then put them on trial? Or does the difference between guilt and innocence not matter anymore?

[QUOTE="Boostinsane"]

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]How is something evil when it was created to protect innocent lives? jlh47

it wasn't created to protect innocent lives. it was created by the governement at the wake of 9/11 as an excuse to spy on it's citizens w/out a warrent and sometimes even to imprison them for a certain amount of time w/out any evidence to justify their imprisonment. it's contents are vague and open for explotation and possible government coersion.

Ah yes, the post 9/11 American mantra.

[QUOTE="Rhythmic_"]If you're not a terrorist, and you're not doing illegal things, who cares. None of you have been affected by the Patriot Act. I believe it's part of the reason we haven't been attacked since 9/11. I could be wrong, but either way, I see no reason to revoke it.bradleybhoy

If you're a terrorist and you're doing illegal things then why isn't a trial enough? What happened to EVIDENCE? It's not as if without the patriot act terrorists would be above the law and able to blow up things indiscriminately.

I mean to use the patriot act you'd have to be aware of said terrorist's presence, so why can't the US government with all its "intelligence" and technology not gather evidence on theterrorists planning an attack and then put them on trial? Or does the difference between guilt and innocence not matter anymore?

Activist judges are what happened. We can't trust our court system anymore. You'd have judges giving terrorists $5 dollar bail or denying the case altogether just because they don't agree with the war on terror and in Iraq. Also, trials take time that homeland security cannot afford to waste, unless the defendant specifies a timely trial, which none of them would. And it's not necessarily to be used for arresting people, it's more to be used for gaining intelligence about larger operations by observing certain indivduals without having to knock on their door and say "Hi, we have a warrant and we're going to be tapping your phones to see if you're involved with any terrorist plots or organizations."

It makes perfect sense to me.

If you're not a terrorist, and you're not doing illegal things, who cares. None of you have been affected by the Patriot Act. I believe it's part of the reason we haven't been attacked since 9/11. I could be wrong, but either way, I see no reason to revoke it.Rhythmic_

[QUOTE="Rhythmic_"]If you're not a terrorist, and you're not doing illegal things, who cares. None of you have been affected by the Patriot Act. I believe it's part of the reason we haven't been attacked since 9/11. I could be wrong, but either way, I see no reason to revoke it.AGSUser12

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]It's not a drastic change and I fully support it. Anyone that believes that the Patriot Act would turn America into some type of coersive, totalitariaism is crazy in my opinion. And believe me, there are some out there.shoeman12

i agree. if it will prevent terrorist attacks and save lives i'm all for it.

agreed. The government should start doing some things right.

[QUOTE="bradleybhoy"]

[QUOTE="Rhythmic_"]If you're not a terrorist, and you're not doing illegal things, who cares. None of you have been affected by the Patriot Act. I believe it's part of the reason we haven't been attacked since 9/11. I could be wrong, but either way, I see no reason to revoke it.Rhythmic_

If you're a terrorist and you're doing illegal things then why isn't a trial enough? What happened to EVIDENCE? It's not as if without the patriot act terrorists would be above the law and able to blow up things indiscriminately.

I mean to use the patriot act you'd have to be aware of said terrorist's presence, so why can't the US government with all its "intelligence" and technology not gather evidence on theterrorists planning an attack and then put them on trial? Or does the difference between guilt and innocence not matter anymore?

Activist judges are what happened. We can't trust our court system anymore. You'd have judges giving terrorists $5 dollar bail or denying the case altogether just because they don't agree with the war on terror and in Iraq. Also, trials take time that homeland security cannot afford to waste, unless the defendant specifies a timely trial, which none of them would. And it's not necessarily to be used for arresting people, it's more to be used for gaining intelligence about larger operations by observing certain indivduals without having to knock on their door and say "Hi, we have a warrant and we're going to be tapping your phones to see if you're involved with any terrorist plots or organizations."

It makes perfect sense to me.

Ah yes, now have you any evidence of "activist" judges or did you just make it up to support your argument. I'm guessing the latter. If presented with sound evidence there is no question judges would convict terror suspects of whatever crime they are guilty of. Also if the terrorist is on trial the length of time the trial takes would not matter, he would still be in custody and therefore not a threat to the public. I do think surveillance of a terror suspect is fine, if there is concrete reason for suspicion. It needs to be strictly regulated and monitored otherwise we're in for a serious abuse of power where the government could fabricate a "suspicion" about any individual and legally tap their phone, violating their rights to privacy.

[QUOTE="Rhythmic_"]If you're not a terrorist, and you're not doing illegal things, who cares. None of you have been affected by the Patriot Act. I believe it's part of the reason we haven't been attacked since 9/11. I could be wrong, but either way, I see no reason to revoke it.AGSUser12

The Constitution itself only goes as far as security allows. Without security, America falls, and we have no Constitution or any kind of rights at all. That is not to say rights and liberties are not important. but when asked in the last debate, even Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama admitted that security has to come before rights when faced with an either/or situation.

And the difference is that somebody like Joe McCarthy would be shot down immediately now. There might be some profiling and stereotyping going on, but it's not to the public and inexcusably unjust extent that his was. McCarthy was doing it for ratings, I believe Homeland Security is doing this for our protection. I have yet to meet anyone or hear of anyone who has been affected in any way by the Patriot Act.

[QUOTE="Rhythmic_"][QUOTE="bradleybhoy"]

[QUOTE="Rhythmic_"]If you're not a terrorist, and you're not doing illegal things, who cares. None of you have been affected by the Patriot Act. I believe it's part of the reason we haven't been attacked since 9/11. I could be wrong, but either way, I see no reason to revoke it.bradleybhoy

If you're a terrorist and you're doing illegal things then why isn't a trial enough? What happened to EVIDENCE? It's not as if without the patriot act terrorists would be above the law and able to blow up things indiscriminately.

I mean to use the patriot act you'd have to be aware of said terrorist's presence, so why can't the US government with all its "intelligence" and technology not gather evidence on theterrorists planning an attack and then put them on trial? Or does the difference between guilt and innocence not matter anymore?

Activist judges are what happened. We can't trust our court system anymore. You'd have judges giving terrorists $5 dollar bail or denying the case altogether just because they don't agree with the war on terror and in Iraq. Also, trials take time that homeland security cannot afford to waste, unless the defendant specifies a timely trial, which none of them would. And it's not necessarily to be used for arresting people, it's more to be used for gaining intelligence about larger operations by observing certain indivduals without having to knock on their door and say "Hi, we have a warrant and we're going to be tapping your phones to see if you're involved with any terrorist plots or organizations."

It makes perfect sense to me.

Ah yes, now have you any evidence of "activist" judges or did you just make it up to support your argument. I'm guessing the latter. If presented with sound evidence there is no question judges would convict terror suspects of whatever crime they are guilty of. Also if the terrorist is on trial the length of time the trial takes would not matter, he would still be in custody and therefore not a threat to the public. I do think surveillance of a terror suspect is fine, if there is concrete reason for suspicion. It needs to be strictly regulated and monitored otherwise we're in for a serious abuse of power where the government could fabricate a "suspicion" about any individual and legally tap their phone, violating their rights to privacy.

The "right to privacy" itself is the result of an activist ruling. Nowhere in the constitution is there guaranteed a right to "privacy", and nowhere is it even implicity implied. That was the result of a judge pulling out of his ass to change public policy, which is the definition of judicial acitivism.

[QUOTE="bradleybhoy"][QUOTE="Rhythmic_"][QUOTE="bradleybhoy"]

[QUOTE="Rhythmic_"]If you're not a terrorist, and you're not doing illegal things, who cares. None of you have been affected by the Patriot Act. I believe it's part of the reason we haven't been attacked since 9/11. I could be wrong, but either way, I see no reason to revoke it.Rhythmic_

If you're a terrorist and you're doing illegal things then why isn't a trial enough? What happened to EVIDENCE? It's not as if without the patriot act terrorists would be above the law and able to blow up things indiscriminately.

I mean to use the patriot act you'd have to be aware of said terrorist's presence, so why can't the US government with all its "intelligence" and technology not gather evidence on theterrorists planning an attack and then put them on trial? Or does the difference between guilt and innocence not matter anymore?

Activist judges are what happened. We can't trust our court system anymore. You'd have judges giving terrorists $5 dollar bail or denying the case altogether just because they don't agree with the war on terror and in Iraq. Also, trials take time that homeland security cannot afford to waste, unless the defendant specifies a timely trial, which none of them would. And it's not necessarily to be used for arresting people, it's more to be used for gaining intelligence about larger operations by observing certain indivduals without having to knock on their door and say "Hi, we have a warrant and we're going to be tapping your phones to see if you're involved with any terrorist plots or organizations."

It makes perfect sense to me.

Ah yes, now have you any evidence of "activist" judges or did you just make it up to support your argument. I'm guessing the latter. If presented with sound evidence there is no question judges would convict terror suspects of whatever crime they are guilty of. Also if the terrorist is on trial the length of time the trial takes would not matter, he would still be in custody and therefore not a threat to the public. I do think surveillance of a terror suspect is fine, if there is concrete reason for suspicion. It needs to be strictly regulated and monitored otherwise we're in for a serious abuse of power where the government could fabricate a "suspicion" about any individual and legally tap their phone, violating their rights to privacy.

The "right to privacy" itself is the result of an activist ruling. Nowhere in the constitution is there guaranteed a right to "privacy", and nowhere is it even implicity implied. That was the result of a judge pulling out of his ass to change public policy, which is the definition of judicial acitivism.

Constitution or not a right to privacy should be granted.

[QUOTE="bradleybhoy"][QUOTE="Rhythmic_"][QUOTE="bradleybhoy"]

[QUOTE="Rhythmic_"]If you're not a terrorist, and you're not doing illegal things, who cares. None of you have been affected by the Patriot Act. I believe it's part of the reason we haven't been attacked since 9/11. I could be wrong, but either way, I see no reason to revoke it.Rhythmic_

If you're a terrorist and you're doing illegal things then why isn't a trial enough? What happened to EVIDENCE? It's not as if without the patriot act terrorists would be above the law and able to blow up things indiscriminately.

I mean to use the patriot act you'd have to be aware of said terrorist's presence, so why can't the US government with all its "intelligence" and technology not gather evidence on theterrorists planning an attack and then put them on trial? Or does the difference between guilt and innocence not matter anymore?

Activist judges are what happened. We can't trust our court system anymore. You'd have judges giving terrorists $5 dollar bail or denying the case altogether just because they don't agree with the war on terror and in Iraq. Also, trials take time that homeland security cannot afford to waste, unless the defendant specifies a timely trial, which none of them would. And it's not necessarily to be used for arresting people, it's more to be used for gaining intelligence about larger operations by observing certain indivduals without having to knock on their door and say "Hi, we have a warrant and we're going to be tapping your phones to see if you're involved with any terrorist plots or organizations."

It makes perfect sense to me.

Ah yes, now have you any evidence of "activist" judges or did you just make it up to support your argument. I'm guessing the latter. If presented with sound evidence there is no question judges would convict terror suspects of whatever crime they are guilty of. Also if the terrorist is on trial the length of time the trial takes would not matter, he would still be in custody and therefore not a threat to the public. I do think surveillance of a terror suspect is fine, if there is concrete reason for suspicion. It needs to be strictly regulated and monitored otherwise we're in for a serious abuse of power where the government could fabricate a "suspicion" about any individual and legally tap their phone, violating their rights to privacy.

The "right to privacy" itself is the result of an activist ruling. Nowhere in the constitution is there guaranteed a right to "privacy", and nowhere is it even implicity implied. That was the result of a judge pulling out of his ass to change public policy, which is the definition of judicial acitivism.

Constitution or not a right to privacy should be granted.

The "right to privacy" itself is the result of an activist ruling. Nowhere in the constitution is there guaranteed a right to "privacy", and nowhere is it even implicity implied. That was the result of a judge pulling out of his ass to change public policy, which is the definition of judicial acitivism.

Rhythmic_

Constitution or not a right to privacy should be granted.bradleybhoy

Well regardless of your personal opinion on the matter, I hope you understand the point I just made.

[QUOTE="bradleybhoy"]Constitution or not a right to privacy should be granted.Rhythmic_

Well regardless of your personal opinion on the matter, I hope you understand the point I just made.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[QUOTE="Rhythmic_"]

The "right to privacy" itself is the result of an activist ruling. Nowhere in the constitution is there guaranteed a right to "privacy", and nowhere is it even implicity implied. That was the result of a judge pulling out of his ass to change public policy, which is the definition of judicial acitivism.

quiglythegreat

If you're going to interpret the 4th amendment that way, it could just as easily be spun the other way to support the Patriot Act.

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Rhythmic_"]

The "right to privacy" itself is the result of an activist ruling. Nowhere in the constitution is there guaranteed a right to "privacy", and nowhere is it even implicity implied. That was the result of a judge pulling out of his ass to change public policy, which is the definition of judicial acitivism.

Rhythmic_

If you're going to interpret the 4th amendment that way, it could just as easily be spun the other way to support the Patriot Act.