Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: X Y Zebra who wrote (12317)	1/22/2004 2:18:45 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

nor... am I willing to just give up my certain freedoms just because the same government is using the excuse of 9/11 to infringe on privacy issues... again, particularly when that same government is unwilling to simply ask... i would also be interested in hearing which of your certain freedoms have been given up....and just how has the patriot act impeded you from conducting your life and business exactly as you did pre 9/11?....were you aware you could file a lawsuit if your civil liberties were violated? REVIEW & OUTLOOK Patriot Acting Out The phony case against an antiterror law. URL:http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004586 Thursday, January 22, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST Pity the poor Patriot Act. Rarely has a law been misunderstood by so many thanks to the manipulation of so few. To its supporters it's an essential tool for fighting terrorism, as President Bush said Tuesday night. To its detractors it's a dangerous infringement on civil liberties. So perhaps a few words of clarification are in order. Let's start with what two of its advocates had to say about the Patriot Act at the time of its passage not long after September 11: Senator John Kerry (D., Mass.): "I support the conference report before the Senate today. . . . if one is going to cope with an al Qaeda, with a terrorist entity such as Osama bin Laden, who moves his money into this legitimate marketplace, law enforcement has to have the ability to hold people accountable . . ." Senator John Edwards (D., N.C.): "When I met with FBI agents in Charlotte shortly after September 11, they told me their number one priority was to streamline the process for conducting investigations of foreigners operating in the United States. We've done that . . ." Today Senators Kerry and Edwards and another erstwhile fan, Joe Lieberman, sing a different tune, seizing every opportunity to take shots at the law they and all but two of their fellow Senators voted for. (The House vote was 357-66.) The Senators stand by their votes, saying parts of the law are still OK. But given the hostility to Mr. Bush and John Ashcroft among Democrats who vote in the primaries, they seem to have concluded that there's more to be gained in denouncing the law, albeit only in general terms. As Dennis Kucinich is fond of pointing out, he's the only Democratic Presidential candidate who voted against the Patriot Act. Maybe this is because most Patriot Act provisions are just plain common sense and in many cases have long been available in drug and Mafia cases. Take the roving wiretap, which follows a suspect rather than a specific phone that could be jettisoned after one call. If investigators can use roving wiretaps to track down drug peddlers--as has been permitted since 1986--they ought to be able to use them to catch terrorists. Or consider the provision that permits access to library and other business records. Civil libertarians have been having a field day with this one, scaring librarians into thinking that Big Brother is invading the reading rooms of America. What they fail to mention is, first, that the law requires a court order. And second, that investigators in ordinary criminal cases can already gain access to library records--as happened in the 1997 Gianni Versace murder in Miami Beach and the 1990 Zodiac gunman case in Manhattan. The law does a number of other useful things. Perhaps most important, it removes the legal barriers that used to forbid information sharing between intelligence and law enforcement agencies. It's now legal for a federal prosecutor to tell the FBI if he has information about terrorist activities. That used to be a federal offense. The Justice Department says the Patriot Act has played "a key part"--sometimes the "leading role"--in a number of successful anti-terror operations. As for civil-liberties abuse, a useful measure of just how profoundly threatening the law is should be Section 223, the Patriot Act provision under which citizens can seek monetary damages if they are mistreated. To date, the number of lawsuits is zero.

To: X Y Zebra who wrote (12317)	1/23/2004 4:59:05 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

what a friend -gg share the fire ah ? Sure, what are friends for? The girls are... HOT :-) I had other epic battles from the depression set That one sounds interesting. I have no idea why a difference on opinion, or the desire for the government to be more honest is viewed as an attack and made a "de-facto" enemy There does seem to be a trend recently set in motion whereby one is either "With us or against us", and in order to be "With us", you have to shut up and obey. Any questions or criticisms can put you in the "against us" camp, there to rot for all time with the likes of Bin Ladin. I can understand that it is a sensitive issue given 9/11, for that I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I myself have to remind of that day constantly and remember the anger I felt I know what you mean. As someone who went to school amid noises of gunfire and bombs going off in the distance, I am no stranger to terrorism and the pain its random carnage causes. Terrorism is not a new phenomenon. It just seems that way to North Americans who never really experienced it aside from a couple of sporadic incidents. 9/11 was a terrible event, made more shocking by its sheer magnitude and the ruthlessness with which it was executed. Yes, it was horrible. Yes, it was impossible to understand how people can commit such atrocious acts of violence. But, no, it does not excuse anything and everything that US did afterwards in the name of "fighting terrorism" - curbing personal freedoms, locking up people for years without a charge nor access to a lawyer, grossly exaggerating a remote threat so they can invade a country and occupy it, etc. Re "fighting terrorism" - I find this phrase very bizarre and personally feel it detracts from the understanding of the problem. "Terrorism" is a method of warfare. It is the preferred method of fighting a state when you don't have their military means. It is not a person, a group of people, or any other entity that can be fought. Saying you are "fighting terrorism" is like saying you are fighting kung-fu. I wonder why Bush did not define the enemy as Al-Qaeda and all their associates. I wonder why it is that the definition of the enemy is left so ambiguous. Could it be that if we don't have a defined enemy, the battle will never be won? why are we ignoring the fact that slowly but surely, we are becoming less and less (numbers) while the third world is exploding in their populations There is a saying, hereby massacred by my translation that goes "One eats, the other watches/Thus brews armageddon". As the disparity between nations grows, so does the tension. This is not to say, of course, that rich nations should pour money into poor ones to level the field at their own expense, but the dynamics are there and it would do us well to recognize them. all they need to do --in general terms now-- is travel a little more.... oh yes and have better Geography teachers... I bet they would have a better understanding of what is it that in some lands, they view Americans the way they do. Possibly. It would also help to reduce the diffusion of litanies such as "Everybody hates us because we are rich, powerful, and wonderful" in favor of a broader understanding that allows for the possibility that if groups of people resent the US, they might have different reasons, including the roles US has played in their own misery. For example, I would love to see this "You hate us because we are powerful" thing said to a Chilean tortured during the rule of Pinochet and had to flee his home, never to return :-) in spite of all ills (as anyone else have) it is still a great place to be... very generous and positive... just a little blind here and there... I agree. I especially like the west coast, but have visited New York, Boston, etc as well as I have friends and family members there. I have enjoyed every visit to the US, despite the jet lag that makes me want to kill myself the first couple of days as I find myself desperate to sleep at 5AM :-)