msandersen said:
thatwendigo has a right to raise the topic without being ridiculed. This may not be the Cold War 50s, where it would probably be true, but the Bush era is pretty scary too. 9/11 has been a great opportunity to take away poeple's rights and give extra powers to agencies they could never get before due to the outcry it would have caused.
Actually, there are some disturbing similarities between the current administration's reaction to events and a certain action back before COINTELPRO. To put it bluntly, everyone who says that I'm paranoid should read up on
Operation Northwoods and the
Project For The New American Century. Other things to look into are the Iran Contra Scandal (specifically John Poindexter, who now heads DARPA), Cheney's Halliburton subsidiaries selling parts to Iraq, the imprisonment of Jose Padilla and Mike Hawash, and the COINTELPRO hearings in the 70s.
The reason that the CIA and FBI were separated and not allowed to share information was they they were carrying out joint operations to blackmail, discredit, and otherwise harass civil rights leaders, dissidents, and other "undesirables" that the government didn't particularly care for. That the Patriot Act has torn this down shows how short sighted Congress is, and that Benjamin Franklin was right when he said that "Any society that sacrifices a little liberty for a little safety will have neither."
Most of all, pay attention to
COINTELPRO and
Northwoods, (new link) though.
Paranoid? I pay attention to history.
windowsblowsass said:
has anone here actually read the patriot act the real reason for it is mainly so that the fbi and cia can talk before they couldnt
Yes, I have.
Have you?
Chip NoVaMac said:
You are right that the basis is better communication between agencies. Yet it does provide the government the ability to "avoid" the Bill of Rights in the "pursuit" of "terrorists" (the quotations were intentional).
Tell it to Padilla and Hawash, along with the other two US Citizen detainess that are incommunicado in military brigs. Let's try to establish this, for those who doubt what I'm saying... The President has claimed the power to decide whether or not you get a trial, through the executive declaration that awards someone the dubious label "enemy combatant." If he says so, you suddenly lose your right to a jury trial of your peers, when the crime that this supposedly makes you face a military court for is the same as Treason, which we already have standards and precedent to hold hearings against in civilian court.
The internment of Japanese-Americans during WWI has not been shown to prevent further damage to the US. I will yield that today is a different matter. But if we allow for expanded "rights" of the "government"; how do we reel these in after the threat is over (hopefully)?
US Constitution, Ammendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, now shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor to be deprived of his life, liberty or property, without due process of law.; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
US Constttution, Ammendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and
public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;
to be confronted with the witnesses against him;
to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel in his defense.
More importantly, the basic issue that should make everyone hate the Patriot Act...
US Constitution, 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.
The whole point of the Fourth Ammendment is to create accountability in the judicial and law enforcement systems, since swearing an oath that you need to search someone is supposed to be a big deal. The Patriot Act largely does away with some needs for Warrants, extends the powers of others, and
creates a secret intelligence court that doesn't answer to Congress.
What the hell were they thinking?
there is so much hatred in the US after the WTC attacks, it is not hard to understand how some feel. There were many of us at 40+ years of age that sought to go after Al Qeada and Bin Laden, but were turned down due to our age or physical condition. The first MLB game after 9-11, I waved the "Don't Tread On Me" flag.
The point being is that we should not be "blinded" to the hatred that fills our hearts with the loss of 3000+ lives at the WTC, the Pentagon, or in PA. We need to look deeper into our hearts and beliefs in order to find answers. Otherwise the cycle of violence will only continue.
I've yet to see evidence that's more than circumstantial that it was Al Qaeda. There were supposedly fifteen Saudis on that plane, out of nineteen men. If there had been fifteen Jews, then the outcry against Israel would have been instant. If there had been fifteen Chinese, fifteen Germans, fifteen of any other country, we'd have gone after them and wanted to know why.
On that day, there was one non-military aircraft aloft, and it was gathering the Bin Ladens to get them out of the country. Why? Why do the siblings of the man we're supposedly going after get to leave, rather than being questioned?
