Patriot Act II

**Decker** · 02-08-2006, 10:09 AM

Another thread raised the specter of the Patriot Act—a horrible piece of law. Just for your information here’s a little bit of what the new Patriot Act (‘PA2’) ( House Report 109-333 USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 ) entails:

Sec. 605 states that
"There is hereby created and established a permanent police force, to be known as the 'United States Secret Service Uniformed Division."
This federal police force can “make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony."

What the hell is “any offense against the United States” and what are “reasonable grounds?” They will mean anything Bush wants them to mean thanks to the recent stacking of the Supreme Court w/ “strict constructionists” like Roberts and Alito and their ‘Unitary Theory of Presidential Powers.” Talk about awesome powers of the State…wow.

I guess someone could figure that political demonstrators are offensive to the US (as Bush defines the US’s interests) and should be arrested on the reasonable grounds that the demonstrators hurt the US’s interests and national morale…no circularity there and no true definite standards either.

The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the establishment of federal police powers. Police powers are delegated to the States under the US Constitution unless the Congress creates a narrowly tailored exception such as the Coast Guard. Anyone ever hear of an unconstitutionally overbroad and vague law? Now you have—The PA2.

The PA2 is another Bush and co. power-grab…what a shock. A compliant, supine Congress, a stacked Judiciary poised for more corrupt decisions (like Bush v. Gore) and a White House w/ designs on concentrated federal power all point to a fabulous new idea (well, not really new): A dictatorial police state that cares about you and your safety in the proud tradition of Germany’s Gestapo, Italy’s Facis Di Combattimento and the Soviet Union’s KGB. Reauthorization of the Patriot Act w/ its “improvements” can make this happen.

Source: Paul Craig Roberts

**BigDyl** · 02-08-2006, 10:11 AM

Freedom isn't free. Sometimes you have to sacrafice freedom in order to preserve the rest of your freedoms. Wait....

**largepkg** · 02-08-2006, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by BigDyl

Freedom isn't free. Sometimes you have to sacrafice freedom in order to preserve the rest of your freedoms. Wait....

Come to the dark side my son.

**BigDyl** · 02-08-2006, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by largepkg

Come to the dark side my son.

Nooooooooooo

**TJ Cline** · 02-08-2006, 12:41 PM

I bet the Republican nut huggers here will try and support this violation of our freedom.

**largepkg** · 02-08-2006, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

I bet the Republican nut huggers here will try and support this violation of our freedom.

Are you implying that I wear short shorts?

**TJ Cline** · 02-08-2006, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by largepkg

Are you implying that I wear short shorts?

I just threw up in my mouth

**topolo** · 02-08-2006, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

I bet the Republican nut huggers here will try and support this violation of our freedom.

I support this and any other violation of you and your person.

**DOMS** · 02-08-2006, 01:13 PM

**TJ Cline** · 02-08-2006, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by topolo

I support this and any other violation of you and your person.

**************Ghey post alert*************************

**ZECH** · 06-20-2006, 05:11 PM

I missed this and for once, I absolutely agree. The patriot act is one of the worst infringements on our privacy ever.

**ALBOB** · 06-20-2006, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by dg806

I missed this and for once, I absolutely agree. The patriot act is one of the worst infringements on our privacy ever.

Houston, we have a problem. dg806, Decker and ALBOB all agree on a political issue. Better put your head between your legs and kiss your ass good-bye. I see nothing good coming from this.

**maniclion** · 06-20-2006, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by ALBOB

Houston, we have a problem. dg806, Decker and ALBOB all agree on a political issue. Better put your head between your legs and kiss your ass good-bye. I see nothing good coming from this.

Fuckin hippies

Now for me to pop some of my pain killers and chill to some tunes for my last hour of work.

**ZECH** · 06-20-2006, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by ALBOB

Houston, we have a problem. dg806, Decker and ALBOB all agree on a political issue. Better put your head between your legs and kiss your ass good-bye. I see nothing good coming from this.

You don't know how hard this made me laugh!

**lnvanry** · 06-20-2006, 08:21 PM

I don't mind giving up some privacy for security...at least for the time being.

**CowPimp** · 06-20-2006, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by lnvanry

I don't mind giving up some privacy for security...at least for the time being.

Terrorism will never end. It has been around for centuries. "For the time being" will easily turn into much longer than you are probably thinking. A federal police force that can arrest people for totally ambiguous reasons is pretty much the beginning of a total police state where the government has the power to take down anyone it wants for no reason.

**lnvanry** · 06-20-2006, 10:50 PM

IMO things tend to swing like a pedulum...right now its swinging towards a stronger fed gov't and less civil rights....things will swing back the other way when its gone too far. We have the power to change things back and fourth in this country.

Also, I don't expect the gov't to abuse that ambigous arresting power. Besides, they could have done it in the past too...its just in writing now.

**TJ Cline** · 06-20-2006, 11:54 PM

Originally Posted by lnvanry

I don't mind giving up some privacy for security...at least for the time being.

**CowPimp** · 06-21-2006, 02:43 AM

Originally Posted by lnvanry

IMO things tend to swing like a pedulum...right now its swinging towards a stronger fed gov't and less civil rights....things will swing back the other way when its gone too far. We have the power to change things back and fourth in this country.

Also, I don't expect the gov't to abuse that ambigous arresting power. Besides, they could have done it in the past too...its just in writing now.

I think you're being incredibly naive. There is a reason for the constitution, particularly the bill of rights, being written the way it was. Because they foresaw problems with that kind of power being bestowed upon the government. Hopefully this never comes to fruition, or you are right, one of the two.

**Decker** · 06-21-2006, 07:39 AM

Originally Posted by ALBOB

Houston, we have a problem. dg806, Decker and ALBOB all agree on a political issue. Better put your head between your legs and kiss your ass good-bye. I see nothing good coming from this.

I'm going to print this post out and make a T-shirt out of it.

**DOMS** · 06-21-2006, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by CowPimp

I think you're being incredibly naive. There is a reason for the constitution, particularly the bill of rights, being written the way it was. Because they foresaw problems with that kind of power being bestowed upon the government. Hopefully this never comes to fruition, or you are right, one of the two.

Correct. The Constitution is not meant to empower the people, rather it's to limit the governments power over the people.

**BigDyl** · 06-21-2006, 04:02 PM

True Story, because DOMS doesn't want the people to have power.

**ALBOB** · 06-21-2006, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by BigDyl

True Story, because DOMS doesn't want the people to have power.

Let's do some logical thinking here; if the Constitution says the government should have LESS power, who do you think then is left with MORE power? Give it a try, but don't hurt yourself.

**BigDyl** · 06-21-2006, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by ALBOB

Let's do some logical thinking here; if the Constitution says the government should have LESS power, who do you think then is left with MORE power? Give it a try, but don't hurt yourself.

True Story, but read my post and see that DOMS doesn't want people to have power, not the constitution.

**TJ Cline** · 06-21-2006, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by ALBOB

Let's do some logical thinking here; if the Constitution says the government should have LESS power, who do you think then is left with MORE power? Give it a try, but don't hurt yourself.

The Government

**DOMS** · 06-21-2006, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by ALBOB

Let's do some logical thinking here; if the Constitution says the government should have LESS power, who do you think then is left with MORE power? Give it a try, but don't hurt yourself.

BigDyl...logical?

...

Bwhahahahahahahahahaha...

**BigDyl** · 06-21-2006, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by DOMS

BigDyl...logical?

...

Bwhahahahahahahahahaha...

**BigDyl** · 06-21-2006, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

The Government

True Story, at least someone agrees with me.

**DOMS** · 06-21-2006, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by BigDyl

Think about it: which is better? To draft a document that sets forth the rights of the people (and therefore, their limits) or to limit the governments role in the affairs of the people? In the second example, the people's rights are limitless and the government's rights are forever limited.

The problems begin when people start "interpreting" the constitution or amending it. Or, as of late, simply ignoring it.

**DOMS** · 06-21-2006, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by BigDyl

True Story, at least someone agrees with me.

Statistically, it was bound to happen.

Thread: Patriot Act II

Thread Tools

Display

Patriot Act II

Similar Threads

Should I buy a Jeep Patriot?

Patriot Day Sale

A True US Patriot

What is the Patriot Act and why do I care?

Posting Permissions