WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Headlines Patriot Act In Action

gurlgonewild

Was machen Sie?
1,086
0
0
#1
don't you feel so much safer now?

entire article:
http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2005/07/18/news/protest.php

excerpt:
Rights groups alarmed as FBI builds vast files
By Eric Lichtblau The New York Times
TUESDAY, JULY 19, 2005
WASHINGTON The FBI has collected at least 3,500 pages of internal documents in the past several years on a handful of civil rights and antiwar protest groups in what the groups allege is an attempt to stifle political opposition to the Bush administration.

The FBI has in its files 1,173 pages of internal documents on the American Civil Liberties Union, the leading critic of the Bush administration's antiterrorism policies, and 2,383 pages on Greenpeace, the environmental group, which has led acts of civil disobedience in protest of the administration's policies, the Justice Department disclosed in a filing this month in a U.S. court in Washington.

The Justice Department filing came as part of a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act brought by the civil liberties union and other groups that maintain that the FBI has engaged in a pattern of political surveillance against critics of the Bush administration.

A smaller batch of documents already turned over by the government sheds new light on the interest of FBI counterterrorism officials in protests surrounding the war in Iraq and the Republican National Convention last year.

FBI and Justice Department officials declined to say what was in the civil liberties union and Greenpeace files, citing the pending lawsuit. But they said that, as a matter of both policy and practice, they had not sought to monitor the political activities of any activist groups and that any intelligence-gathering activities related to political protests were designed to prevent disruptive and criminal activity at demonstrations, not to restrain free speech.

"I'm still somewhat shocked by the size of the file on us," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the civil liberties union. "Why would the FBI collect almost 1,200 pages on a civil rights organization engaged in lawful activity?"

Protest groups charge that FBI counterterrorism officials have used their expanded powers since the Sept. 11 attacks to blur the line between legitimate civil disobedience and violent or terrorist activity in what they liken to FBI political surveillance of the 1960s.

The American Civil Liberties Union is now seeking FBI records since 2001 or earlier on 150 groups that have been critical of the Bush administration's policies on the Iraqi war and other matters.

The Justice Department is opposing the civil liberties union's request to expedite the review of material it is seeking under the Freedom of Information Act, saying it does not involve a matter of urgent public interest. Department lawyers say the sheer volume of material, with thousands of pages to sift through, will take them eight to 11 months to process for Greenpeace and the civil liberties organization alone.

The civil liberties union, which went to court in a separate case to obtain 60,000 pages of records on the government's detention and interrogation practices, said the FBI records on the dozens of protest groups could total tens of thousands of pages by the time the request was completed.
 

DanGeo23

Resident Conservative
1,218
0
0
#2
it would be nice if they could shut the ACLU down... or make it start playing by the rules....
 
3,559
2
0
#3
DanGeo23 said:
it would be nice if they could shut the ACLU down... or make it start playing by the rules....
It would also be nice if they re-instated the SS too. :rolleyes:
 

Darklight

Oppressing your posts...
5,438
87
142
#5
hmmm... wasnt one of the reasons we went after saddam, because he was working to eliminate groups that opposed his power or decisions?
 

DanGeo23

Resident Conservative
1,218
0
0
#6
the ACLU... like the NAACP are branches off the Democratic tree... they need to have their tax exempt status revoked at the very least... I feel that the ACLU, in the name of protecting rights, protects people that want to harm people in this nation... the ACLU also protects groups like NAMBLA how can one support them... they don't feel that possessing child porn should be a crime... or that people need to have their faces shown on their drivers licenses...
 

RageAgainst

Chaotic Neutral
7,540
506
257
#7
DanGeo23 said:
the ACLU... like the NAACP are branches off the Democratic tree... they need to have their tax exempt status revoked at the very least... I feel that the ACLU, in the name of protecting rights, protects people that want to harm people in this nation... the ACLU also protects groups like NAMBLA how can one support them... they don't feel that possessing child porn should be a crime... or that people need to have their faces shown on their drivers licenses...
I don't know why, but I'm sure you're just showing 1/2 to 1/4 of the truth here. I'm sure they don't support pedophiles, unless you have proof, do you have any?
 
3,559
2
0
#8
DanGeo23 said:
the ACLU... like the NAACP are branches off the Democratic tree... they need to have their tax exempt status revoked at the very least... I feel that the ACLU, in the name of protecting rights, protects people that want to harm people in this nation... the ACLU also protects groups like NAMBLA how can one support them... they don't feel that possessing child porn should be a crime... or that people need to have their faces shown on their drivers licenses...
They support free speech, not pedophiles. They fought for NAMBLA because even pedophiles deserve free speech. If you got arrested for saying something the ACLU would fight for you. You must hate free speech.
 

DanGeo23

Resident Conservative
1,218
0
0
#9
no I don't hate free speech... I hate people that abuse kids... and people that protect people that abuse kids....under the guise of Defending Free Speech , they're not predators
Dennis Miller said:
“The ACLU has degenerated to the point where they will sue to prevent you from erecting a public nativity scene during the holiday season, while at the same time they’ll go to court to support the local freak who wants to stumble into that scene and fuck one of the sheep in the ass.”
even pedophiles deserve free speech
no... pedophiles don't deserve shit... they are the absolute... most worthless... pieces of shit.. if you rape a child you should have your rights taken from you.. IMO.
 

Woodreaux

Original Dicksman
2,429
0
0
#10
Okay Dan, we know you don't like the ACLU and that you think they are pedaphiles. Let's focus on the Patriot Act. It sucks rancid goat balls! Has enough one else ever considered that by the passage of the Patriot Act is a victory for terrorists?
The Patriot Act only succeeded in stripping law aiding Americans of privacy. It effectively lowers the quality of life for all Americans. So the impact of 911 was more than terrorists murdering a shit load of peeps using the plane crashes, America as whole was subquently subjected to an insidious assault on their privacy that does not benefit the average citizen. Had it been in place, the Patriot Act would not have stopped 911.
The passage of the Patriot Act sends this message to terrorists: "If you use terrorism against our people, we'll fuck with them even more by taking away more of their privacy and turn this place into a police state! Ruining the American way of life is our job!".
Surrendering rights in exchange for the hope of security is a losing proposition. It's a betrayal of American ideals, an affront to our dignity and it's a sign of weakness. We deserve better leadership for our tax money.
 
137
0
76
#11
The fact of the matter is that the constitution protects(or atleast is intended to protect) everyone under its area of influence. If it didn't do you honestly think some groups such as neo-nazis and the KKK would still be around?

I remember a quote. "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

Not sure, think Benjamin Franklin stated that, though.

Just because you disagree with an individual on something doesn't mean they should have their rights revoked. People in the USA are supposed to be judged by their actions, not their beliefs.
 
3,559
2
0
#12
Runningflame570 said:
The fact of the matter is that the constitution protects(or atleast is intended to protect) everyone under its area of influence. If it didn't do you honestly think some groups such as neo-nazis and the KKK would still be around?

I remember a quote. "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

Not sure, think Benjamin Franklin stated that, though.

Just because you disagree with an individual on something doesn't mean they should have their rights revoked. People in the USA are supposed to be judged by their actions, not their beliefs.
It was Thomas Jefferson who said that, but I'm not to fond of the founding fathers. Dan is a bigot and doesn't think about such things. He judges people on their beliefs while proclaiming that his are superior.
 
3,559
2
0
#14
Runningflame570 said:
Which was the main point I was trying to convey, thanks for clarifying it. :thumbsup:
Had to dumb it down a bit for Dan. He can't understand things easily. :happysad:
 

gurlgonewild

Was machen Sie?
1,086
0
0
#17
the point of my post was to say abuse of power is inevitable. whether in your op it'd be the gov't, the ACLU, or whatever...is irrelevant. the only difference is who you feel safer, more secure, or find trustworthy given your choices.

if you give someone power; abuse will occur. in the past, i am certain the FBI collected information without having a legitimate reason, however now it is much more difficult to wipe the slate clean. people ought to be allowed to review files and correct inacccuracies. here, they are unwilling to waiver. mind you unless there was a leak, no one comes in person and declares we are watching you.

let's think of this as an exercise on an individual level. if huge political machines are unable to withstand scrutiny, what are your chances? if your choices of security, safety, and trustworthiness is limited to one; the gov't, who is able to defend you? answer me that dan.
 

DanGeo23

Resident Conservative
1,218
0
0
#18
The Patriot Act only succeeded in stripping law aiding Americans of privacy
there are people in this nation that wish to do us harm.. and those people could have hid behind privacy laws... the patriot act was far from perfect... but I don't like the handcuffs to be on the police when they are investigating shit... and not on the criminal...
It was Thomas Jefferson who said that, but I'm not to fond of the founding fathers
TJ and BF never had to deal with issues of today...
Dan is a bigot and doesn't think about such things. He judges people on their beliefs while proclaiming that his are superior.
Bigot... One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.... hmmm.. seems that there are more bigots here than just me... you are very intolerant of my views... I am strongly partial to my politics... and when I think that someone is wrong I will tell them... so if this makes me a bigot.. then so be it..
Learn to spell "C-A-N-A-D-A", DUMBASS!
A-M-E-R-I-C-A-'S H-A-T
 
1,723
90
112
#19
DanGeo23 said:
there are people in this nation that wish to do us harm.. and those people could have hid behind privacy laws... the patriot act was far from perfect... but I don't like the handcuffs to be on the police when they are investigating shit... and not on the criminal...
TJ and BF never had to deal with issues of today...
Bigot... One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.... hmmm.. seems that there are more bigots here than just me... you are very intolerant of my views... I am strongly partial to my politics... and when I think that someone is wrong I will tell them... so if this makes me a bigot.. then so be it..
I'm sure you won't read it all, you neocon prat,
And I'm sure that you see nothing wrong with that.
But do you know what I hate?
What makes me quite mad?
The Patriot act, It's really a drag,
Danny my boy, you seem like a smart guy,
So why do you persist with this tired battle-cry?
It's difficult to admit that your own side is wrong,
you must see your errors, yet you argue on.
Well here it is Dan, the hated ACLU,
explaining what is wrong with patriot two.

ACLU said:
Among its most severe problems, the bill:

Diminishes personal privacy by removing checks on government power, specifically by

* Making it easier for the government to initiate surveillance and wiretapping of U.S. citizens under the authority of the shadowy, top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. (Sections 101, 102 and 107)
* Permitting the government, under certain circumstances, to bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court altogether and conduct warrantless wiretaps and searches. (Sections 103 and 104)
* Sheltering federal agents engaged in illegal surveillance without a court order from criminal prosecution if they are following orders of high Executive Branch officials. (Section 106)
* Creating a new category of “domestic security surveillance” that permits electronic eavesdropping of entirely domestic activity under looser standards than are provided for ordinary criminal surveillance under Title III. (Section 122)
* Using an overbroad definition of terrorism that could cover some protest tactics such as those used by Operation Rescue or protesters at Vieques Island, Puerto Rico as a new predicate for criminal wiretapping and other electronic surveillance. (Sections 120 and 121)
* Providing for general surveillance orders covering multiple functions of high tech devices, and by further expanding pen register and trap and trace authority for intelligence surveillance of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents. (Sections 107 and 124)
* Creating a new, separate crime of using encryption technology that could add five years to any sentence for crimes committed with a computer. (Section 404)
* Expanding nationwide search warrants so they do not have to meet even the broad definition of terrorism in the USA PATRIOT Act. (Section 125)
* Giving the government secret access to credit reports without consent and without judicial process. (Section 126)
* Enhancing the government’s ability to obtain sensitive information without prior judicial approval by creating administrative subpoenas and providing new penalties for failure to comply with written demands for records. (Sections 128 and 129)
* Allowing for the sampling and cataloguing of innocent Americans’ genetic information without court order and without consent. (Sections 301-306)
* Permitting, without any connection to anti-terrorism efforts, sensitive personal information about U.S. citizens to be shared with local and state law enforcement. (Section 311)
* Terminating court-approved limits on police spying, which were initially put in place to prevent McCarthy-style law enforcement persecution based on political or religious affiliation. (Section 312)
* Permitting searches, wiretaps and surveillance of United States citizens on behalf of foreign governments – including dictatorships and human rights abusers – in the absence of Senate-approved treaties. (Sections 321-22)

Diminishes public accountability by increasing government secrecy; specifically, by

* Authorizing secret arrests in immigration and other cases, such as material witness warrants, where the detained person is not criminally charged. (Section 201)
* Threatening public health by severely restricting access to crucial information about environmental health risks posed by facilities that use dangerous chemicals. (Section 202)
* Harming fair trial rights for American citizens and other defendants by limiting defense attorneys from challenging the use of secret evidence in criminal cases. (Section 204)
* Gagging grand jury witnesses in terrorism cases to bar them from discussing their testimony with the media or the general public, thus preventing them from defending themselves against rumor-mongering and denying the public information it has a right to receive under the First Amendment. (Section 206)

Diminishes corporate accountability under the pretext of fighting terrorism; specifically, by

* Granting immunity to businesses that provide information to the government in terrorism investigations, even if their actions are taken with disregard for their customers’ privacy or other rights and show reckless disregard for the truth. Such immunity could provide an incentive for neighbor to spy on neighbor and pose problems similar to those inherent in Attorney General Ashcroft’s “Operation TIPS.” (Section 313)

Undermines fundamental constitutional rights of Americans under overbroad definitions of “terrorism” and “terrorist organization” or under a terrorism pretext; specifically by

* Stripping even native-born Americans of all of the rights of United States citizenship if they provide support to unpopular organizations labeled as terrorist by our government, even if they support only the lawful activities of such organizations, allowing them to be indefinitely imprisoned in their own country as undocumented aliens. (Section 501)
* Creating 15 new death penalties, including a new death penalty for “terrorism” under a definition which could cover acts of protest such as those used by Operation Rescue or protesters at Vieques Island, Puerto Rico, if death results. (Section 411)
* Further criminalizing association – without any intent to commit specific terrorism crimes – by broadening the crime of providing material support to terrorism, even if support is not given to any organization listed as a terrorist organization by the government. (Section 402)
* Permitting arrests and extraditions of Americans to any foreign country – including those whose governments do not respect the rule of law or human rights – in the absence of a Senate-approved treaty and without allowing an American judge to consider the extraditing country’s legal system or human rights record. (Section 322)

Unfairly targets immigrants under the pretext of fighting terrorism; specifically by

* Undercutting trust between police departments and immigrant communities by opening sensitive visa files to local police for the enforcement of complex immigration laws. (Section 311)
* Targeting undocumented workers with extended jail terms for common immigration offenses. (Section 502)
* Providing for summary deportations without evidence of crime, criminal intent or terrorism, even of lawful permanent residents, whom the Attorney General says are a threat to national security. (Section 503)
* Completely abolishing fair hearings for lawful permanent residents convicted of even minor criminal offenses through a retroactive “expedited removal” procedure, and preventing any court from questioning the government’s unlawful actions by explicitly exempting these cases from habeas corpus review. Congress has not exempted any person from habeas corpus -- a protection guaranteed by the Constitution -- since the Civil War. (Section 504)
* Allowing the Attorney General to deport an immigrant to any country in the world, even if there is no effective government in such a country. (Section 506)