Obama is going to need the Patriot Act for the legal framework to run the re-education camps necessary to bring some of the more recalcitrant non-believers back into the new American fold.
I highly recommend you read the following essay: 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy (downloadable .pdf)
True, but part of the re-education camps will be to teach us that there are no re-education camps. So we've got that going for us.
Excellent points that is why we need to remove all these provisions from the Act itself. There are two sides of this and both are rightful to a certain degree. Nobody wants an authoritarian regime and neither does anyone want to see another 9/11 for that matter. This balancing act will be the greatest challenge facing America in this new century.
Singapore has nothing to do with it. I believe government way oversteps its boundaries, but viewing my emails, and calls just doesn't bother me. A right to privacy is fair. The government going behind my back and looking does bother me. I have a right to privacy, and I know that my calls and emails are not private. You must think everything the government does is wrong. Taxation violates my privacy. God forbid the government know what I buy, how I make my money. God forbid the government know anything about me, because that invades my privacy. If I'm trying to break into a car, I don't want a cop to invade my privacy by asking me what I'm doing. Now, if they would stop those taxes on my phone bill, that would make happy. I don't mind sacrificing some freedoms to be honest. I'm not that familiar with other parts of the act, and I do believe it violates the constitution and unwarrented seizures and arresting people without due process is unreasonable. Listening to calls & emails doesn't bother me, but it bothers you and I'm sorry that it does. I don't mind added security at airports and event venues, and that is actually inconvenient for me. It is just my opinion, and I asked how DD was effected, and he really hasn't been, he and I assume you are bothered by the fact that it is unconstitutional. I think some of you are acting like this is the government from V for Vendetta.
Not really. They issued curfews and other more extreme methods of control. You know that though. You are using a gross exaggeration to try to make a point.
I hope not. I am in favor of it. There needs to be security and measures taken to prevent more terrorist attacks from happening on America.
I dont think an outright repeal is the right way to go. There are parts of the patriot act that did improve security and certainly have a place. The problem is that the patriot act is emblematic of a lot of legislation that came out after 9/11. It was quickly passed, with little debate, and wasn't thought through. And now we're stuck with a poorly thought out and politically loaded item in front of us. The same goes with the department of homeland security and the question of detainees from the War on Terror. One of the biggest betrayals in my mind from this administration was the sheer ineptitude it demonstrated repeatedly when it came to dealing with basically a free mandate to do whatever it wanted to protect this country. And our administration failed miserably in all aspects. And now the next administration, whoever that may be, will be forced to clean up this crap.
You're asking if they're going to repeal something that they all voted for and then the vast majority of them (including Obama) voted to reauthorize?
I'm not really using it as an argument saying that it doesn't invade privacy. I'm saying it doesn't bother me to invade on that particular form of privacy. It doesn't bother me, it doesn't effect my everyday living. Nobody on this board understands me or any non-left wing person. It is very sad. I understand why you people don't like it(even though it wouldn't suprise me if some people hated everything Bush has ever done.)
I was considering reading it, altough I appreciate this much better than reading the whole thing. I would govern myself by what somebody wrote, but as I say. I don't disagree that it infringes on privacy, it just doesn't do it in a way that bothers me. I've never seen email or phone conversations as private. Anything that travels trough a medium controlled by somebody else, I have severe reservations about how private it is. I don't think it will get repealled. I realize I have yet to answer that portion of the question.
I don't think that is true and I don't think it is sad either. Frankly, I find it more "sad" that instead of explaining your position further, you merely reflect that I will somehow not understand, and that I should be pitied for it. Bizarre. A simultaneous proclamation of acceptance of an alternative viewpoint and a poor attempt to blame said viewpoint on percieved prejudice. What a surprise. Limited content and a barely-disguised and specious ad hominem.
They did not do that when they first came to power it was a slow process...which was my point.... This is the first brick in the McCarthyism type of wall.....and it must be shattered. Yep, I hope so.... DD
I hope they repeal it and we get nice speeches about how it was an attack on liberty and affront to civil rights and all this stuff. I hope they trash it like no other bill has ever been trashed before. Don't just repeal it, go all the way with it. Slander everyone who voted for it as long as they have a capital "r" next to their name on tv. The hypocrisy will be delightful.
This is shows that you just don't understand me. What facts do you want me to give you about how something makes me feel. There are no facts when it comes to feelings. Do you not read my posts? There is an anti-Bush prejudice and to not recognize it, is to live a lie. I am saying how I feel and have state that I do believe it violates the constitution but it is a violation that does not bother me in any way shape or form. Maybe it does lead to something that does bother me, then I can be against that law.
What if there's no alternative? Under the assumption that this is necessary to prevent terrorism, would you rather give up some freedoms or risk a terrorist attack? Surely safety is more important than fringe freedom.
A fair point. Of course, you neglect that simply because a medium is insecure is not sufficient grounds to allow for eavesdropping, and it is certainly not acceptable as evidence on said basis either.
Why does it have to lead to that? It has been 6yrs, and it hasn't led to anything that I know about, but like I said, I am not familiar with it beyond a general level. What do you think is the hard line to take on privacy issues? I'm just curious, seeing as it would differ greatly between people. My line hasn't been crossed yet, where clearly yours has.
