Patriot Act

[Smoothie104]

Just a quick poll.

[front]

Your poll does not discuss a military photo... [crack-crinkle-crack] (broken record sound here)

If anyone should vote on any poll about the 'Patriot Act" in the US then everyone should get informed. Totally informed in the US and about "Patriot Act" II.

http://www.dailyrotten.com/source-docs/patriot2draft.html

For the "Patriot Act" I, then start here with this brief article:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1219-01.htm

I am not pushing that site's agenda... so:

Then hit http://www.google.com

.. and do some research.

Along the way... read, read, read, and ask questions... don't be afraid to put your name on a letter and post it to your Congressman and find out what they think.

Don't hand off your freedom... in other words.. don't allow Congress to abrogate their responsibility to the Executive...

A Congress which has exactly one serving member who has a child serving in the military.

What the...?

Think... think!

And read.

Take it easy... have a look at the links above and give it a bit of a thought. :-)

cheers

front

[Smoothie104]

Front, your right about the poll not being about a military photo. I started it here because I am curious about what the people Ive met on this site including you, think about it. My girlfriend is tired of listening to me.

Thanks for the additional info and links!

[FallenAngel]

A Congress which has exactly one serving member who has a child serving in the military.


True....but there are I think five (?) members of congress who are reservist who were told they COULDN'T go when their units were called up. They packed their gear and wanted to do their part when a letter from some Army big-wig said the only view of Iraq they would get is from CNN. There's a thread about this further down entitled "political leaders" or something.....So, it all depends on who ya listen to. ;)

[front]

FallenAngel wrote:

"True....but there are I think five (?) members of congress who are reservist who were told they COULDN'T go when their units were called up."

As it should be my friend.

In WWII President Roosevelt called 5 Congressman back. 4 came home and one resigned and stayed in active duty.

(I have searched for a link to give a bit more information on this (I read a page on this subject a couple of weeks back) but I did not bookmark the page and cannot give you a link to a source right now.)

The duty of a Congressman is to their State. Their willingness to serve is not called into question under any circumstances, and indeed they are to be not only lauded but supported in their decision to head out to the Gulf in this day, and age.

I did find some information about this man (one of the Congressmen recalled in WWII):

"Johnson, Lyndon (US congressman and president 1963-1969)
The first member of Congress to enter active military duty when he joined the US Navy. 1942 received the Silver Star for gallantry in a bombing mission over New Guinea. Reached the rank of lieutenant colonel. Reentered the House when President Roosevelt ordered all congressmen back to the capital in 1942."

(If you have not heard his speech on the moment when he signed the 1964 Civil Right Act (brief link: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcivil64.htm) the please attempt to find it and listen to it.)

So...however... and in all times a Congressman's job is a serious job and they represent the mandate of the people of their State. It would be a calamity of the "utmost catastrophe" for a Congressman to fall in the enemy's hand.

That is the reason why they cannot, and should not, serve in the front line, outside of the US.

Hell, if Carl Levin, my Congressman decided he was up and to go, then I'd stand up and go in his bleeding place! First of all he's an old bloke, second he'll do a lot more good alive in Michigan than I'd ever do as an advocate, and third I'm a bit younger, not much but some, and so I reckon I'd be running faster than him if the rounds started incoming... hahaha! :-)

cheers

front

[front]

60% so far (11th April) think its 'fine'.

Words fail me. Guys, you 'choose' to come on this board and 'vote' on that poll.

The Patriot Act means that one day there will be no polls. Read... get out there and research what the Patriot Act means. WTF?!

cheers

front

[Smoothie104]

so far 58% of us think its OK that the government could read our email, monitor what sites we use on the web, go to the library and see what books we've borrowed. Be arrested and held without probable cause, be subject to illegal search and seizure,etc.....

You gotta love that slick marketing, calling it the patriot act. Sounds so good who wouldnt vote for it. Perhaps the "Big Brother is watching-Invasion of Privacy Act" wouldn't be such a hit.

[Smoothie104]

Anyone other than Front Fallen Angel and I have any input?

[hood]

I didn't read it all, but I read a few sections. All of those things are great for law enforcement to aid in finding terrorists. Maybe I missed it, but where does it say in there that we wouldn't be able to hold polls on the internet and talk freely? There's nothing in there that you'd be persecuted for what you say, but more about what actions you've taken. Have you looked at the people who've been arrested? These are people who are either illegally in the country, or are here, but when a background check was done on them, they found they that had 15 different illegal passports, and used them to get legal status here. I haven't heard a story yet about someone who's been detained, that didn't have some seriously suspicious actions under their belt. One of the highjackers from the Sep 11th attacks had a house which was not allowed to be searched well in advance of that date because some judge said there wasn't quite enough evidence. The Patriot Act would have allowed that search.

[papabear]

I haven't had time to look at the draft because of work, but a common retort might be:

"If you haven't done anything wrong, then why worry?"

With that said, I'd be interested in reading why people think the Patriot Act is not a good law. Morever, if it is unjust, how so-->(1) what rights would it be violating? and (2) how are these rights defined?

[a. enders]

That's sheer insanity.Next step is the Secret Police kicking down your door for thinking about considering disobeying the great government.Overly dramatic yes,but come on.....
As for the "why worry" bull,this is a land where you are INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty.
The government just assuming you're going to do something illegal and taking "appropriate" measures (whatever they may be,wwire tapping,bugging,assassaination.....) is NAZI Germany and the Gestapo or Communist Russia and the KGB.It's wrong.Period.Especially in the "land of the free".
Are you gonna cut your kids hand off because you think he'll steal something?

[papabear]

As for the "why worry" bull,this is a land where you are INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty.
Yes, that's the principle upon which people are tried for crimes. Moreover, before they can be punished, they must be judged guilty of the crime.


The government just assuming you're going to do something illegal and taking "appropriate" measures (whatever they may be,wwire tapping,bugging,assassaination.....) is NAZI Germany and the Gestapo or Communist Russia and the KGB.It's wrong.Period.Especially in the "land of the free". Are you gonna cut your kids hand off because you think he'll steal something?
It seems that you are attempting to argue that the sort of acts sanctioned by the Patriot Act are unjust because they are unjust punishments or punishments without a crime.

In response to your example--it's unjust for a parent to cut his child's hand off for several reasons. First of all, the parent does not have the authority to inflict such a punishment. Second of all, even if he did have the authority to inflict that sort of punishment, he cannot do it except as a punishment for a crime that has been committed. This is not a
Minority Report world.

These acts that you mention (wiretapping and other acts of collecting information) are not punishments--at most they are restrictions upon a person's "freedom" or on a "right to privacy". Even if we are exponents of liberalism and believe in it 100%, we can agree that there are certain cases where a person's "freedom" can be curtailed through the coercive power of law, to prevent harm to another for example.

In order to satsify the objections of the liberal, one must show that the Patriot Act goes too far in restricting freedom or infringing upon a person's rights.

(For more about liberalism, go to http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/--under this definition most everyone on the political spectrum--"conservative" to "liberal" is usually a liberal to one degree or another.)

If one has even more time on his hands--consider these questions: what is a right? What is the right to privacy? And what exactly is freedom?

[a. enders]

Ah...well argued.To be honest I was expecting a flame from a follow-the-gov-to-the-death sort.And I must applaud you for your use of the word "liberal".I am constantly (quite literally) hearing it used as an implied insult ("Those damn liberals!","The liberal media...").Nice to hear (read) it witout those corresponding implications of Satan-level evil.
I admitted my examples were overly dramamtic,but I think you got my point.
I'll work on those questions for awhile and get back.

[front]

Hood wrote:

"These are people who are either illegally in the country, or are here, but when a background check was done on them, they found they that had 15 different illegal passports, and used them to get legal status here."

The US Constitution protects all persons within the 50 states. Regardless of how they got there, illegal or not, treacherous reasons or not... once a foreign citizen walks out on US soil they are under the protection of the US Constitution. The US Constitution does not care whether incompetent Federal officials grant immigrant status (and we are all immigrants (by choice or mistake)), or, as it happened, student Visas to some of the 9-11 hijackers some six months after they died in the attack. It stands like a granite slab in the face of anyone who would seek to subvert the rule of law, the truth of justice, and God given rights, which are held self-evident!

The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the Constitution applies to all persons, not just US Citizens, who are within the 50 States. (That's the reason why the Taliban/Al Queda/Battlefield Detainees are being held in Cuba... the US Constitution does not apply there).

Some people are deeply suspicious of the 'Patriot Act'. Who are these "people"? They are some of the most respected elected leaders and advocates in our generation(s). Do some research. The Patriot Act quietly removes, in an act of a post 9-11 catharsis, by a scared and, other issues thereafter notwithstanding, humiliated Congress, the rights which each and every US Citizen, or person within the 50 States, has held dear since 1787.

Read here:

http://www.acluohio.org/issues/safe_&_free/checks_&_balances.htm

This is what they think:

"Through this legislation, the administration stripped the courts of their responsibility to oversee search warrants, immigration decisions, and wiretapping and Internet surveillance in protection of your rights. The legislation virtually destroys the privacy rights of the American people. It expands government access to personal financial information, rather than safeguarding it from intrusion. It allows the FBI, INS and CIA to demand and receive from businesses your medical, travel or credit records and it does not require judicial review, nor does it mandate that you receive any notice of these intrusions. Student records, once protected by federal statute, are now easily available for scrutiny. These files contain more than academic transcripts, as tax, medical and mental health records may be part of their contents. The effects of the USA-Patriot Act are not limited to suspected terrorists or illegal immigrants. They apply to every person in the United States. The government holds these new rights over all of us, without the safeguard of judicial review or in many cases, appeal.

This Constitution has taken blows and punches... it has been battered and bent... yet it has always stood up. Always...

Do not believe for one minute that the Patriot Act (and as it's very name was a disgusting, cynical attempt to badger our Representatives into collusion) is designed to 'protect' this country.

It will never 'sunset', and we are left with it, and our children with it's legacy. It will be abused by nefarious politicians, and it's victims, of all colour, religions, and race will be seen as traitors, when they do not "comply" with its directives... whatever their protests, and whatever their beliefs (legalization of drugs, labour laws, environmental protests, etc, etc, etc.) However misguided you might think their aims, they have the right to stand up and protest, to organise and lobby...

The Patriot Act is born out of the common complacency, not of the majority of the people of the United States, but of those who would fear for themselves, their power, and their control.

It is tainted by the shades of history, in similar acts, which have corrupted jurisprudence, democracy, and the rule of law in other countries throughout the twentieth century.

It means that one day, you, your friends, and everyone you know, will have to justify yourselves in front of an arbitrary tribunal, on top of which sits those individuals who will not, nor ever, be called to account.

All in the 'cause' of "Patriotism".

To Dissent is Patriotic. I don't like it and I dissent. Therefore I am a Patriot... and I do not like this act, for reasons stated above, and I abhor the fact that it takes my Patriotism and denigrates it.

I think that those who voted "Yes" on the above poll need to read a bit more. I don't understand how so many could vote affirmative if they have read the implications of the "Patriot Act", and yet do not post. I think those people should reconsider...

Otherwise... sure you could power Iraq for the next one hundred years by wrapping a copper coil around the body of Thomas Jefferson in his grave. :-)

And as to this:

a.enders... to the reply to your good post... it's not "well-argued"... don't be afraid to get 'stuck in' and call it out...

papabear says:

"These acts that you mention (wiretapping and other acts of collecting information) are not punishments--at most they are restrictions upon a person's "freedom" or on a "right to privacy". Even if we are exponents of liberalism and believe in it 100%, we can agree that there are certain cases where a person's "freedom" can be curtailed through the coercive power of law, to prevent harm to another for example."

You are most incorrect. We cannot agree as there is no "coercive power of law". This is nonsense. There is only the rule of law... "coercive power of law" implies cohersion. No Judge would ever agree that the rule of law can be a cooercive Act. This is ridiculous.

Also... you 'like' the idea of restrictions on a persons freedom? I don't. Not one bit.

"In order to satsify the objections of the liberal, one must show that the Patriot Act goes too far in restricting freedom or infringing upon a person's rights."

I present you the arguments above and the plea that you should read, not might nor would, but read, about those facts which you have posted on this thread.

<snip>

"If one has even more time on his hands--consider these questions: what is a right? What is the right to privacy? And what exactly is freedom?"

Are you joking? "What is the right to privacy?" Hehehe... you HAVE to be joking my friend. How about the next time you post a letter through the US Mail service you do not place it in an envelope. Send it free and easy in a bunch of open postcards so we can ALL read what you have to say about... whatever at all. Wait a minute... you don't want us to read what you are mailing to you friends (or family)? Tough... the Patriot Act means that "I" can (if I'm an appointed investigator) and I can do whatever I want with that information and you have no recourse to protect your right to privacy. But YOU have nothing to fear... right? Because you have done nothing wrong...

YOU now have no recourse to find out who they are (those who are perusing your mail) or what they are doing with any of your information right now... except, of course to 'protect' you from 'terrorism'.

But you have no fear, right? You're a Patriot. You are so happy about it you post on a public board to affirm your beliefs... Good man! Proud of ya! :-)

cheers

front

"Amendment IV

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."

[Smoothie104]

09-14) 22:32 PDT PHILADELPHIA (AP) --

In the two years since law enforcement agencies gained fresh powers to help them track down and punish terrorists, police and prosecutors have increasingly turned the force of the new laws not on al-Qaida cells but on people charged with common crimes.

The Justice Department said it has used authority given to it by the USA Patriot Act to crack down on currency smugglers and seize money hidden overseas by alleged bookies, con artists and drug dealers.

Federal prosecutors used the act in June to file a charge of "terrorism using a weapon of mass destruction" against a California man after a pipe bomb exploded in his lap, wounding him as he sat in his car.

A North Carolina county prosecutor charged a man accused of running a methamphetamine lab with breaking a new state law barring the manufacture of chemical weapons. If convicted, Martin Dwayne Miller could get 12 years to life in prison for a crime that usually brings about six months.

Prosecutor Jerry Wilson says he isn't abusing the law, which defines chemical weapons of mass destruction as "any substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury" and contains toxic chemicals.

Civil liberties and legal defense groups are bothered by the string of cases, and say the government soon will be routinely using harsh anti-terrorism laws against run-of-the-mill lawbreakers.

"Within six months of passing the Patriot Act, the Justice Department was conducting seminars on how to stretch the new wiretapping provisions to extend them beyond terror cases," said Dan Dodson, a spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. "They say they want the Patriot Act to fight terrorism, then, within six months, they are teaching their people how to use it on ordinary citizens."

Prosecutors aren't apologizing.

Attorney General John Ashcroft completed a 16-city tour this week defending the Patriot Act as key to preventing a second catastrophic terrorist attack. Federal prosecutors have brought more than 250 criminal charges under the law, with more than 130 convictions or guilty pleas.

The law, passed two months after the Sept. 11 attacks, erased many restrictions that had barred the government from spying on its citizens, granting agents new powers to use wiretaps, conduct electronic and computer eavesdropping and access private financial data.

Stefan Cassella, deputy chief for legal policy for the Justice Department's asset forfeiture and money laundering section, said that while the Patriot Act's primary focus was on terrorism, lawmakers were aware it contained provisions that had been on prosecutors' wish lists for years and would be used in a wide variety of cases.

In one case prosecuted this year, investigators used a provision of the Patriot Act to recover $4.5 million from a group of telemarketers accused of tricking elderly U.S. citizens into thinking they had won the Canadian lottery. Prosecutors said the defendants told victims they would receive their prize as soon as they paid thousands of dollars in income tax on their winnings.

Before the anti-terrorism act, U.S. officials would have had to use international treaties and appeal for help from foreign governments to retrieve the cash, deposited in banks in Jordan and Israel. Now, they simply seized it from assets held by those banks in the United States.

"These are appropriate uses of the statute," Cassella said. "If we can use the statute to get money back for victims, we are going to do it."

The complaint that anti-terrorism legislation is being used to go after people who aren't terrorists is just the latest in a string of criticisms.

More than 150 local governments have passed resolutions opposing the law as an overly broad threat to constitutional rights.

Critics also say the government has gone too far in charging three U.S. citizens as enemy combatants, a power presidents wield during wartime that is not part of the Patriot Act. The government can detain such individuals indefinitely without allowing them access to a lawyer.

And Muslim and civil liberties groups have criticized the government's decision to force thousands of mostly Middle Eastern men to risk deportation by registering with immigration authorities.

"The record is clear," said Ralph Neas, president of the liberal People for the American Way Foundation. "Ashcroft and the Justice Department have gone too far."

Some of the restrictions on government surveillance that were erased by the Patriot Act had been enacted after past abuses -- including efforts by the FBI to spy on civil rights leaders and anti-war demonstrators during the Cold War. Tim Lynch, director of the Project on Criminal Justice at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, said it isn't far fetched to believe that the government might overstep its bounds again.

"I don't think that those are frivolous fears," Lynch said. "We've already heard stories of local police chiefs creating files on people who have protested the (Iraq) war ... The government is constantly trying to expand its jurisdictions, and it needs to be watched very, very closely."

[hood]

The problem here is that except for possibly the enemy combatant thing, I was sitting here cheering for the meth lab guy who's getting 12 years, or the assets being seized from the con artists. Maybe the victims of these horrible crimes will start to feel a little empowered for a change. The last time I heard of a big round-up concerning registration, was in California where it turned out that almost all the people who were in jail, were never supposed to be legally in the country in the first place. I remember they showed a story on 60 minutes of a guy and his family who were deported back to Pakistan because he was a driver for a toxic chemical truck, had 5+ passports, most of which were forged, and various other dubious paperwork. I'm not really crying for these people who were screwing over the system in the first place.

[StarvingStudent47]

I haven't had time to look at the draft because of work, but a common retort might be:

"If you haven't done anything wrong, then why worry?"

With that said, I'd be interested in reading why people think the Patriot Act is not a good law. Morever, if it is unjust, how so-->(1) what rights would it be violating? and (2) how are these rights defined?

1) Right to privacy. More explicitly, our right to not be subject to unwarranted searches and seizures without probable cause.

2) Amendment IV to the Constitution of the United States: "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."

"If you haven't done anything wrong, why worry?"

Because it goes against everything held as an American ideal. “Those who would sacrifice a little freedom for temporal
safety deserve neither to be safe or free.” - Benjamin Franklin If we throw away America's legacy of personal freedom, al-Qaeda wins.

[California Joe]

I don't like it one bit. Real Patriots don't need to be legislated.


Can you believe they traded Lawyer Malloy? Bastards.

[FallenAngel]

I haven't had time to look at the draft because of work, but a common retort might be:

"If you haven't done anything wrong, then why worry?"

With that said, I'd be interested in reading why people think the Patriot Act is not a good law. Morever, if it is unjust, how so-->(1) what rights would it be violating? and (2) how are these rights defined?

1) Right to privacy. More explicitly, our right to not be subject to unwarranted searches and seizures without probable cause.

2) Amendment IV to the Constitution of the United States: "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."


The patriot act merely changes two parts of the 4th amendment. What do you define as an "unreasonable search"? I believe that a search that helps deters, prevents or solves crimes (from shop lifting to terrorism) is "reasonable"-- that's the sole reason we have institutions like Police, Arson investigators, FBI, etc. Expanding the definition of "reasonable" to include more things has occured throughout our history as times, circumstances and technology has changed.

It also changes what "probable cause" is. For some people, it is a smoking gun in plain view, while to others it is simple circumstantial coincidence. I tend to allow the police more give in this area because, again, the very purpose for their existance is to prevent crime from happening and bringing justice to the crime that ARE committed. They can not do that effectively if the ACLU or whoever makes it nearly impossible for them to do their jobs in the most efficient manner.

As for the Gestapo and KGB- it was not the institution that was corrupted, but the government it served. Hitler and Stalin were some of evilist people ever to live. The institutions themselves were brutally efficient- which is what police departments SHOULD be. E.g.- the mere thought of the Gestapo would land on you with both feet would have surely stopped many from committing crimes. Imagine if the same went for terrorists/ criminals regarding the FBI, NSA, etc.

And if you're wrongfully arrested, you still have your day in court. If you're aquitted by a jury of your peers, then you have grounds to sue. ;)

[JiJoMacLE45]

My new favorite adjective, 'evilist'. Thank you FA for your fine grammatical contribution to my ever expanding lexicon. ;)

[James]

The patriot act merely changes two parts of the 4th amendment.



Merely?

What's next? Maybe we should just get rid of the whole constitution... it's awfully old. :roll:

If memory serves me, the Declaration of Independence states that people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, nad that these rights are inalienable.

A definition of inalienable: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred.

Granted, the Declaration of Independence is a political document, not a legal one, but I find it impossible to reconcile a "mere" change in any constitutional amendment with this sentiment.

What's next? Maybe the 1st Amendment will be changed so that all religions except Islam are okay. Freedom of speech? Maybe the government should control the news media.

Maybe the 2nd amendment should be repealed completely.

Maybe we should change the 6th Amendment, so that accused criminals don't need to be told what they are accused of... oh, wait, the Patriot Act has done that already... :roll:

Where do these "mere" changes end? This is the start of a slippery slope, and I fear where we will find ourselves if we go all the way to the bottom.

[Seiyuuki]

Hi Mom...

[StarvingStudent47]

The Constitution cannot be changed by legislation. It can only be changed by constitutional amendment. The Patriot Act is not a constitutional amendment; it is legislation.

Thus, when the Patriot Act contradicts the Constitution (right to know accuser--6th Amendment) or alters the meaning (unreasonable searches and seizures; probable cause--4th Amendment), it should not CHANGE the Constitution as FallenAngel describes. It should be TRUMPED by the Constitution, declared unconstitiutional by the United States Supreme Court, and repealed. Unfortunately, the US Supreme Court has not fulfilled its duty here.

I've often said that I'm not a soldier. That's true. I have no idea how to field-strip an M-16, or even how to reload one. However, I am a first-year law student (hence the scales avatar), and the "Patriot Act" runs afoul of what I've learned of the Constitution and its application.

[Saranof]

Why not just call it "the anti terrorist act"...

[mocking_loudly]

Doesn’t effect my life.... so I guess Ill vote for the soon to be implemented forth option:

4. I am a foreign devil and have little interest in American constitutional matters.

Hood will you please add this option.

[Seiyuuki]

There will always be a debate on how the wording of the Constitution should be interpret.

[Mortimer]

lol you conservatives thought you were safe here lol!!

i leave for not even a week and i come back and see threads like this...amazing :)

[martinexsquaddie]

These sort of laws policemen love massive powers vauge definations any critiscim and your Unamerican :( Did'nt you already do this in the 1950's
and look how that turned out.
a meth lab is not a chemical weapons factory
a pipe bomb is not a weapon of mass destruction
that sort of mentalitly better not have any military manuals at home when they kick your door down. Good news all those airsofters can be classed as training for terrorism and be locked up in camp X-ray or would that be a cruel an unusual punishment for the afgans :P

[mocking_loudly]

I knew deep down inside every airsofter lay a dormant terrorist.

Preach it brother!.

[Seiyuuki]

lol you conservatives thought you were safe here lol!!

i leave for not even a week and i come back and see threads like this...amazing :)

The liberals aren't the only one questioning the constitutional legality of the Patriot Act.

[JiJoMacLE45]

It's a cosmetic fix. How can you add new laws when your not enforcing the ones on the books. I'm a supporter of our current administration, I've been a LEO for nearly 6yrs, so I stand to benefit professionally from some of these changes. It does not even bother me that someone's sensitive civil liberties might be infringed upon. However, you are putting all of these resources into programs which are going to give back very little in the way of return. It's like DoHS, your putting band-aids on bullet wounds.I do not think AG Ashcroft intends to create this big brother idea to tap into phone lines and e-mail accounts to find out who dresses up in garters and high heels when no one is looking, *cough-"Chops"-cough*, but there are certainly more productive ideas than the ones being pushed.

[front]

"It does not even bother me that someone's sensitive civil liberties might be infringed upon."

Words fail me... usually I can think up an answer pretty quick but here we have a LEO with 6 years experience who proudly boasts on a public board:

"It does not even bother me that someone's sensitive civil liberties might be infringed upon."

Jesus Christ.

front

[JiJoMacLE45]

I knew I'd hear about that. It's sarcasm Front, must not translate via the written word. I'll elaborate for our viewing audience: if this patriot act is approved and goes into effect, various measures are going to be put into play that would benefit the law enforcement community when it comes to going after terrorists, theoretically. Some of these new measures are being met with resistance because they are believed to infringe upon the civil liberities of the American public. Fine, so be it.

Now my problem with this is, it's bullsh*t. Unfortunely more often than not those of us in law enforcement get handcuffed when it comes to dealing with the bad guys because we have to walk the fine line between being the hero/good guy/cowboy on a white horse that we all see in the movies and the big/bad/minority abusing/racists, that some of the public sees us as. We hear it from the communities b/c we can not remove the drug dealers from the streets, but as soon as we begin using tactics that produce results and put bad people in small rooms, we get flamed for it.

Case in point, about a year ago, our narcotics unit began rolling up on known drug dealing locations in the city and tossing everyone on the corner. Now what's the PC for the stop. Well, according to 11-1321 of the state code, "any person who stands, sits idling, or loiters upon any pavement, sidewalk or crosswalk . . . ." yaddah, yaddah. Loitering. Anyway, our narco-boys line 'em up, Terry pat, request ID, 29 checks, the works. If you come out of it clean, you pose for the WPD photo shop, a Polaroid camera head shot. Then get sent on your way. The photo goes into a book of suspected drug dealers this way we can figure out who runs w/ who, whose crews get along, whose do not, you get the picture. Basic intel gathering. Now one of the requirements for writing a loitering vio is that you have already given warning to the person that you writing the vio for. Because of this, rarely are vios are written b/c and the jump out itself is considered the warning. Now we are fully within our rights as police officers to do this, roll up, ID, Terry, 29, have a nice day.

This goes on for most of the summer and we start getting results. We're hitting corners and locking people up, we're hitting corners and starting to find out who some of the honchos are, the 'jump out' squads are proving to be a success. We are actually making a dent in the drug trade, if albiet a small one, it's a dent. Then somebody get's pissed. We are infringing upon the liberties of these 'fine citizens of the community' by using these 'gestapo'(yes the term was actually used) tactics. At the time we were saddled with a city government that was not too keen on the PD. Who cares that 90% of the people were are stopping on these corners are involved in the drug trade. Who cares that we are starting to see results in reducing the crime rate. Doesn't matter. We are hurting the feelings of the drug dealers so let's stop so they can go back to doing what they do. So the 'jump out' squads stop. Take a guess what happens.

We cannot conduct search or arrest warrants between 2200 and 0600 because we might wake up the neighbors when we shout "Get the f*ck on the f*cking floor" at the top of our lungs after the flashbang goes off. Heaven forbid we hurt their feelings as we remove the drug dealer who has been holding their block hostage for years. But then when we hit the house in the middle of the day, when the bad guy is wide awake fondling his Tec-9 and the element of surprise is blown the second we start rolling down the block, we get chastised for putting the neighborhood's safety in jeopardy b/c the bad guy might have started shooting.

If you want to fight crime, if you want to fight terrorism, you can not play by rules when the people you are going up against do not even know there is a rulebook. I'm not saying everyone's phones should be tapped so don't start with the flaming, but how can you win the race when you cut off your foot at the starting line. That's my point Front.

[martinexsquaddie]

difficult one
anti terror laws can be abused
e.g. "the ring of steel" put round the city of london most vechiles searched happened to be driven by blacks. The ira well known for its afro-carribean
sections not :roll:
people want bad guys locked up but not bothered by the police themselves.
what sort of lawmakers says you can't raid someone before 6 am :roll:

[FallenAngel]

what sort of lawmakers says you can't raid someone before 6 am :roll:

The ACLU and liberals :lol:

That's what my point is. The reason why the Patriot act scares people- because it's not PC. I agree completely wit JiJo- the hands of cops are tied alot tighter than anyone might think. It borders on ridiculious. The Patriot act would give police broader powers of search and siezure. It shifts the burden of proof to the criminal. E.G.- instead of the criminal defense lawyer saying "Why did you go in there and reck my client's meth lab? Not good enough, I'm suing you, your department, etc." the police can instead say "Why the hell does your client have a meth lab? To hell with HOW we found it, the bottom line is that we DID find it."

Anyone who's remotely involved with law enforcement knows the Patriot act has some great aspects to help officers. The entire thing could use some polishing- granted- but the core of it is very valuable.

[JiJoMacLE45]

The laws vary depending on which state you happen to be in, but here it is no knock-knock boom-boom between 10PM and 6AM. There are circumstances where warrants can be served between the aforementioned times. But these are rare and it must be proven that the circumstances involving the warrant service are extreme, the same requirements for no knock warrants. Your publicly elected officals hard at work folks, keeping your streets safe.

[FallenAngel]

Yeah, each state is screwy. Here in LA, the LAPD and LA County Sheriffs have it REALLY tough. Everytime the cops get rough with someone there's a ACLU rep right there to sue the cop, his dept. his mother and so on.

Case in point- the Rodney King "beating". What the liberal media DIDN'T tell you was that Rodney was not in the car alone. There were three other suspects in the car who followed police instructions and were arrest by the book and nothing bad happened to them. They were later released. Good ol' King though was as high as a kite on crystal meth. He ignored police commands to get on the ground. He resisted when four officers tried to take him down not once, not twice, but THREE times (When you're high on crystal meth, you can act like superman and easily take on 4 guys and win)They then warned him that they would use a taser and for him to get down on the ground. They used the taser on him which brought him to his knees. (This is when the infamous viedo begins). He still didn't get down. The police AGAIN commanded him to get down. Left with no other option (other than deadly force) the police hit him until he reached the ****ed position AND STAYED THERE. After that, they searched him, cuffed him and took him away.

But if you listened to the ACLU and the media, they say something like the cops pulled him over for no reason (wrong...DUI was the reason) and they just started wailing on him for no reason. (wrong again.)

And that was 10 years ago....things are even more restrictive now! :roll:

[JiJoMacLE45]

Yeah, those hollywood cops have it pretty rough. I can't imagine having to work under the microscope that shadows their department. Luckily here in Dull-a-ware we are out of the spotlight with Philly, DC, B-more, and NYC all within two hours, they get the attention, but some of it trickles down.

[front]

JiJoMacLE45?

I hope to feck I do not live in your State.

(Let me edit that to put the "u" in "e" for you).

Yawn... catch ya later coppa! <finger>

cheers

front

;-_)