HEyHEY
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-29-04 09:34 PM
Original message |
I admit it... I don't quite get the patriot act. |
|
After-all the time I've spent on DU. I still don't have a clear idea on what the patriot act does (Forgive me I'm Canadian).
Could someone explique moi?
|
KissMyAsscroft
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-29-04 09:36 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Eliminates the Fourth Amendment. |
dflprincess
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-29-04 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
5. Which is the one that says |
|
"The right of the people to be secure in in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violatd and no warrents shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation and paricularily describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."
|
KG
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-29-04 09:39 PM
Response to Original message |
2. fret not, neither do the vast majority of americans |
|
they have no clue what rights they cheered giving up.
they have no clue what they've allowed their abject fear to do to the US.
|
Wonco_the_Sane
(381 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-29-04 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
8. I cheered the Patriot Act |
|
And so should you...you never know who's watching. :)
|
KG
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-29-04 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
10. hey, my enthusiasm was dripping with sincerity! |
Wonco_the_Sane
(381 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-29-04 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
|
I stole that joke from NPR anyway. You made a good point. Some parts of the Act are terrible. Part of the joke that makes it hit home however, is the sort of sick desperation implied. Still sorry, this did start as a serious question and you were right.
|
KG
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-29-04 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
13. tasteful snarky comments are always welcome, even when discussing a |
DuctapeFatwa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-29-04 09:39 PM
Response to Original message |
3. eff.org has the text.Your elected representatives preferred not to read it |
|
However, since it is not secret, like Patriot II, you are allowed to read it.
|
KG
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-29-04 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
6. forgot about the congress critters from both parties that have no clue |
|
what it is all about either.
sickening....
|
jmowreader
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-29-04 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
15. It's not that they "preferred" not to read it |
|
It's that BushCo slapped the thing on their desk and said "vote yes for this, right now, or we'll tell all of your constituents you're unpatriotic and don't care about their safety."
They didn't get a chance to read it, and you can't read it on your monitor unless you have a dual-head system: the Patriot Act is filled with "in 38 USC 101.7, strike the fourth word in the fourth sentence of the ninth paragraph." Then you go to 38 USC 101.7 and find the fourth sentence of the ninth paragraph, which reads "The USSS may not hold US citizens for longer than 72 hours without filing charges against them." Which now reads "The USSS may hold US citizens for longer than 72 hours without filing charges against them."
No wonder the Democrats clapped when the village idiot said the Patriot Act was about to expire.
|
DuctapeFatwa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-30-04 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #15 |
17. Yes, they preferred not to read it. Although you make a very good |
|
argument that they should not only have read it, but gone back out on the capital steps and demanded that bush be removed from office immediately on the grounds of national security.
They preferred to sign what they were told to sign without reading it and sing "God Bless America."
|
jmowreader
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-30-04 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
23. Refresh my chronology |
|
Was it 9/11 - anthrax - Patriot Act or 9/11 - Patriot Act - anthrax?
IIRC the first is the proper chronology.
In which case any recalcitrant lawmakers may have been told, "if you don't make sure this passes, you might receive an envelope full of anthrax in the mail, hint hint."
But we can't assume the Bush Administration would send bags of genuine US Army issue anthrax, the most splendid anthrax the world has ever known, to lawmakers just because the lawmakers would work to stop Bush and Company from gaining absolute power. Why, someone who would do that is a thug with a blackjack in his vest pocket and a derringer in his boot.
Oh yeah. They are. Sorry.
|
absyntheNsugar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-29-04 09:40 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Does some good things like increases money for first responders and intetgrates the FBI and CIA databases.
But also does some very bad things, like allows the FBI to wiretap you without telling you.
|
CalebHayes
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-29-04 09:50 PM
Response to Original message |
7. How can you... Its a million pages |
DuctapeFatwa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-29-04 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
9. LOL You can do it. Just take it one page at a time |
|
And when you finish you will know more about it than the people who decided to vote yes when asked if it is a law that you should be subject to.
|
shanti
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-30-04 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
16. and we friggin pay these people? |
Bandit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-30-04 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #16 |
22. And we just gave them a substantial raise in pay. |
|
:shrug: The world has gone topsy turvy.
|
Eric J in MN
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-29-04 10:01 PM
Response to Original message |
11. Section 216 lets the federal govt track your non-content |
|
Section 216 lets the federal govt track your non-content web-surfing and email, based on the say-so of the executive branch.
As long as the executive branch fills out a form correctly, a judge must rubber-stamp this tracking.
|
T Bone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-29-04 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
14. What do you mean by "non-content" |
|
web surfing and email.
What does "non-content" mean more specifically?
|
GreyV
(151 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-30-04 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #11 |
|
They can track all they want. Did anyone see the last years coverage of European Security Expo? Whew! That some serious technology. Technology which is pretty much open to anybody who can afford it. Anybody! CIA\FBI\DHS will all have to work overtime to track anything, when it comes to savvy individuals.
|
peekaloo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-30-04 09:57 AM
Response to Original message |
19. you're not supposed to get the Patriot Act, it's supposed to "get" you. |
Loonman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-30-04 09:58 AM
Response to Original message |
20. All these posts and not a single link to the actual text? |
DuctapeFatwa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-30-04 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #20 |
21. I said eff in an earlier post I thought it was short enough |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 10th 2024, 06:54 AM
Response to Original message |