Quote :

"Who are the "terrorists" under the new police state laws in America (ie, "Patriot Act", etc.)? According to an FBI pamphlet, it's "defenders of the U.S. Constitution" and those who "make numerous references to the U.S. Constitution"!!"

It also says "lone individuals." Some of the things it lists can't be taken individually...at least I hope, or else they're gonna swoop in and arrest me for being the only person in my house right now. Simply talking about the Constitution a lot doesn't make you a terrorist, but talking about the Constitution a lot and being engaged in "paramilitary training" might be a little worrisome. Besides, the thing is mostly a list of warning signs, not definitive traits of terrorists.

Quote :

"The Fourth Amendment applies to arrests. I'm in law school, so I should know."

SWEET MOTHER OF GOD, SAY IT ISN'T SO!!!

3/4/2004 11:55:39 PM

^^^^ For someone in law school I suggest you learn to read. Unreasonable is the key word. The government has a vested interest in keeping hte population safe. By law of the several states, a valid drivers license is required to drive on public roads. We don't know what the stop was for (for all you know, they pulled her over because she was driving erraticaly or they were searching fo rstolen vehicles etc. Failure to provide ID to a officer when requested, while not a violation of the law in and of itself poses other problems. The court has ruled that your name is not "sensitive" information and that a cop can ask you for it any any time for any reason. Since your name is not protected you could theoreticaly be charged with obstruction of justice, however, that would not hold in court. However, since they can not verify your ID at this time, they can not also verify that you can legaly drive on the road, and as such can not legaly allow you to continue driving. The police can therefore detain you until your identity is verified, you may call any person to come and verify your identity or you may hav the police do it for you.

[Edited on March 5, 2004 at 12:01 AM. Reason : asdfadsfa]

3/5/2004 12:00:52 AM

Quote :

"Failure to provide ID to a officer when requested, while not a violation of the law in and of itself poses other problems. The court has ruled that your name is not "sensitive" information and that a cop can ask you for it any any time for any reason. Since your name is not protected you could theoreticaly be charged with obstruction of justice... --1337 b4k4"

I don't know if "the court" has ruled a cop can ASK you for your name....but assuming that is true, the key word is "ASK". Cops can ask all the questions they want....BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THEM.

So...you say that refusing to identify yourself is NOT a violation of the law, but you say the police should be able to detain a person who has not broken any law? On top of that, you think they should charge people WHO HAVE BROKEN NO LAW with "obstruction of justice"? For what reason?! Just to hastle them?! WHAT'S THE DEAL?!

...I think we may have a supporter of a police state here.

[Edited on March 5, 2004 at 12:16 AM. Reason : ..]

3/5/2004 12:07:04 AM

No you don't have to answer them. However, if you are driving and you stop at a checkpoint, and you fail to produce ID you are breaking a law. DRIVING WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENCE IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. She was driving and stopped at a checkpoint (again, we have no idea why she was stopped or even if it was a check point or a stop because she was drving erraticaly), she refused to give ID, and as such could not be verified to have a valid driver's license. As such, she is violating the law and can be detainied untill her ID is verified.

I did not say they should charge her with obstruction of justice, though if she was stopped for erratic driving she could be.

Understand that you can be arrested without being guilty of a crime, the cops must have reasonable suspicion to believe you are in violation of the law however. In this case, failure to have proper ID while driving a vehicle on public roads. It is up to the courts to decide guilt or innocence, but you can be detained before that.

I am no supporter of police states, just common sense, which you seem to lack.

3/5/2004 12:16:07 AM

Quote :

"No you don't have to answer them. However, if you are driving and you stop at a checkpoint, and you fail to produce ID you are breaking a law. --1337 b4k4"

Even if there is such a law (either federal or state), it is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any state or federal laws that violate the Constitution are null and void.

Random checkpoints where random searches are conducted clearly violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Such random searches lack both a warrant and probable cause.

[Edited on March 5, 2004 at 12:21 AM. Reason : ..]

3/5/2004 12:19:01 AM

^ as usual u focus on 1 sentence and ignore the rest of it. what part of law are u studyin and plan to practice?

also, checkpoints set up to look for drunk driving and cars with proper inspection stickers is violating the law too huh?

[Edited on March 5, 2004 at 12:22 AM. Reason : .]

3/5/2004 12:21:14 AM

It's not a violation of the constitution. Law requires that if you are driving on public roads that you have a valid driver's license. Failure to produce a valid driver's licence is a violation of the law if you are driving on a road. The constitution has nothing against a driver's licence. The fact that a licence is also often used as ID is irellevant.


Prove it was a random checkpoint.

[Edited on March 5, 2004 at 12:23 AM. Reason : asdfasdfg]

3/5/2004 12:22:00 AM

Quote :

"as usual u focus on 1 sentence and ignore the rest of it. --brianj320"

I did not ignore the rest of his post. I read the entire post. I merely did not respond to every single part of the post.

But please...continue to make asinine assumptions and statements.

[Edited on March 5, 2004 at 12:24 AM. Reason : ..]

3/5/2004 12:22:58 AM

haha ur telling me about assanine assumptions and statement!? who started this thread, who started the 9/11 thread with all that assumption conspiracy bull? i sure didnt.

3/5/2004 12:26:52 AM

By the way, might I suggest that if you're studying law, you learn to research facts and case history before you talk

3/5/2004 12:36:47 AM

Quote :

"By the way, might I suggest that if you're studying law, you learn to research facts and case history before you talk --1337 b4k4"

I suggest you get your head examined.

Quote :

"haha ur telling me about assanine assumptions and statement!? who started this thread, who started the 9/11 thread with all that assumption conspiracy bull? i sure didnt. --brianj320"

Quote :

"The fact is that -- as the engaging children's book, "The Emperor's New Clothes", demonstrates -- the vast majority of people prefer the safe-looking lie even when the truth has been unequivocally shown to them.. ... People think that all they have to do to write someone off is to accuse them of espousing conspiracy theory. That is their way of marginalising people who hold ideas of which they are afraid. http://www.diakrisis.org/shape_of_things_to_come.htm"

[Edited on March 5, 2004 at 12:43 AM. Reason : ..]

3/5/2004 12:37:12 AM

i have read and examined everything you have posted and i find it to be no where near reality. yes your Alex Jones might suppose and assume but that is all just what he thinks; it is his scenario. everyone knows there are lots of possible scenarios and that is merely 1 of those. however, you take it to be doctrine and what will undoubtedly happen in this country.

and on the case with the driver refusing to provide ID, if the driver is driving on any road, the law clearly states they must posess and have on their person proof of the ability to operate that vehicle. if they do not provide proof of that, regardless of refusing to identify themselves, they CAN and WILL be detained for precautionary means. think with common sense for once.

[Edited on March 5, 2004 at 12:49 AM. Reason : writing while salisburyboy editing.]

3/5/2004 12:45:53 AM

My head is examined, and determined to be in order. BTW, case information:

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS LIMITED RANDOM CHECKPOINTS

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040113-105740-6545r.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/13/scotus.roadblocks.ap/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108238,00.html

The supreme court has ruled however that checkpoints which are set up for the express purpose of determining if you are violating any laws are unconstitutional:

http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0101/supreme_court.html

However, the supreme court has thrown out cases dealing with license checkpoints, indicating they believe it to be a state controll issue:

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/oct_2001/supreme_court.htm

3/5/2004 12:46:48 AM

Quote :

"i dont need my head examined. --brianj320"

Perhaps you don't...perhaps you do....I didn't make that comment to you...but to 1337 b4k4

[Edited on March 5, 2004 at 12:49 AM. Reason : ..]

3/5/2004 12:47:36 AM

Quote :

"SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS LIMITED RANDOM CHECKPOINTS --1337 b4k4"

Just because the Supreme Court "upholds" some law does not mean that they have necessarily followed the U.S. Constitution. I said from the outset that the courts had upheld some "checkpoint" search/seizure laws and that those holdings were wrong.

[Edited on March 5, 2004 at 12:53 AM. Reason : ..]

3/5/2004 12:49:00 AM

^ They may be wrong in your opinion, but untill you bring it to the supreme court, it's law, and decicively in line with the constitution. Understand that for a case to make the supreme court, it has to have a constitutional challenge. The supreme court has ruled that limited check points (such as the ones decribed in the case if you bother to read) are indeed fully constitutional.

You have yet to prove the woman was stopped at a random check point or even what type of checkpoint it was.

You will make a terrible law student if you can not back up allegations with facts or precident.

[Edited on March 5, 2004 at 12:56 AM. Reason : asdfasd]

3/5/2004 12:54:55 AM

Quote :

"They may be wrong in your opinion, but untill you bring it to the supreme court, it's law, and decicively in line with the constitution. --1337 b4k4"

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land...not the opinions of the supreme court. The opinion of the supreme court could be contrary to the U.S. Constitution. In other words, the supreme court could be wrong. Do you deny that possibility?

Any opinion or holding by the supreme court that is contrary to the Constitution may be binding in that specific case before the court, but it is still an UNCONSTITUTIONAL opinion or holding.

[Edited on March 5, 2004 at 1:12 AM. Reason : ..]

3/5/2004 12:58:53 AM

fuck

[Edited on March 5, 2004 at 1:07 AM. Reason : n/m]

3/5/2004 1:06:40 AM

Quote :

"The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land"

What kind of a law student are you? The Constitution is the framework that laws have to abide by.

3/5/2004 1:12:06 AM

Quote :

"What kind of a law student are you? The Constitution is the framework that laws have to abide by. --GARnREG"

What kind of "American citizen" are you?...who doesn't even know these BASIC facts about the very document that defines our government and refers to our most basic rights?

I refer you to Article VI of our U.S. Constitution...

Quote :

""This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;" --Article VI, U.S. Constitution http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html#section2"

I don't fault you totally. This is what an "education" (rather...intentional dumbed down "education" and exercise in not teaching our youth about truly important matters) at our public "school" indoctrination centers does to you.

[Edited on March 5, 2004 at 1:28 AM. Reason : ..]

3/5/2004 1:16:28 AM

Yes the supreme court can be wrong, hence I said:

Quote :

"but untill you bring it to the supreme court, it's law"

Again, critical reading skills is nessesary for a law student.

As to the supreme law of the land I refer you to Article VI of the US constitution:

Quote :

""This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;""

Key wording there Mr. Law Student


And again, Mr. Law Student:

Quote :

"You have yet to prove the woman was stopped at a random check point or even what type of checkpoint it was. "

[Edited on March 5, 2004 at 1:22 AM. Reason : asdf]

3/5/2004 1:21:42 AM

^
I made the simple statement that the U.S. Constitution was the supreme law of the land. He was questioning that the Constitution was, in fact, the supreme law of the land. I showed that it IS.

You get it, genius?

[Edited on March 5, 2004 at 1:29 AM. Reason : ..]

3/5/2004 1:23:28 AM

I got it, but I was also demonstrating where the idea that this law is, untill overturned by the courts, also part of the "supreme law of the land"

3/5/2004 1:30:28 AM

This is getting scary. Now we're considered the sad product of government indoctorination through public schooling. The mass media's being controlled by the government, we're all brainwashed, I guess there's only one source for knowledge and the truth! Salisburyboy! Yaaaaaay!!! Our saviour has come!

I had a little hope that there was some part of rationality hiding in you somewhere. But when you said,

Quote :

"I don't fault you totally. This is what an "education" (rather...intentional dumbed down "education" and exercise in not teaching our youth about truly important matters) at our public "school" indoctrination centers does to you."

you made me realize that you will now believe no one. You have found a cover excuse to not believe anybody, ever. Nothing anyone ever says will be right, unless you agree. I feel sorry and scared for you.

3/5/2004 1:34:02 AM

Quote :

"you made me realize that you will now believe no one. You have found a cover excuse to not believe anybody, ever. Nothing anyone ever says will be right, unless you agree. --GARnREG"

I have no idea where you are getting this from...because you cannot reasonably deduce that from any of the things I have posted here.

I will believe what is the truth. If someone presents something to me that is backed by the facts and by evidence, I will believe it. Contrary to what you may believe, I don't believe you obtain knowledge from within yourself. That is why I look to sources of information outside of myself. So, of course, I believe some information from others..as long as it is supported by the facts and evidence.

It is preposterous for you to claim "you will now believe no one." Does that mean that I have never believed another person or will never believe another person again (on any matter)?

What is wrong with you people?

Are you so angry with me that you are losing your faculties temporarily and therefore resorting to these irrational and asinine arguments and claims?

[Edited on March 5, 2004 at 1:48 AM. Reason : ..]

3/5/2004 1:38:23 AM

^no, we just see you for the fraud of a human being that you are and like to call you out on it

* you have no rational reasoning skills
* you put forth a flood of information hoping to make you look like you know something
* you quote people as "reliable sources" that are obviously wrong (see your 9/11 quote claiming that a Air National Guard reservist in North Dakota gave the order to shoot down a plane over Penn)
* you refuse to answer logical questions, instead claiming that people who question you are brainwashed and un-american

3/5/2004 2:00:31 AM

Quote :

"no, we just see you for the fraud of a human being that you are and like to call you out on it --goalielax"

Oh, I'm crushed.....

Quote :

"* you have no rational reasoning skills * you put forth a flood of information hoping to make you look like you know something * you quote people as "reliable sources" that are obviously wrong (see your 9/11 quote claiming that a Air National Guard reservist in North Dakota gave the order to shoot down a plane over Penn) * you refuse to answer logical questions, instead claiming that people who question you are brainwashed and un-american --goalielax"

And all this coming from the person who tried to tell us that depleted uranium doesn't burn...

...do you know a cliff I can jump off of?.....

[Edited on March 5, 2004 at 2:06 AM. Reason : ..]

3/5/2004 2:05:33 AM

^thank you for proving my point

3/5/2004 2:17:29 AM

oh no....

salisburyboy has a new pet thread

3/5/2004 9:32:25 AM

well i hope this pet thread is housebroken,
the last one seemed to have crap everywhere

3/5/2004 9:35:46 AM

^ hehe

Say salisburyboy, question for you. Is this the only msg board that you post threads like this and your others? If not could you provide some links? I'd love to see what people outside this board think of your claims.

3/5/2004 9:44:41 AM

Salisburyboy,

if you are that dis-satisfied with our country... why not leave?

3/5/2004 10:55:50 AM

Quote :

"Simply talking about the Constitution a lot doesn't make you a terrorist, but talking about the Constitution a lot and being engaged in "paramilitary training" might be a little worrisome. --GrumpyGOP"

Those "talking about the Constitution a lot", generally, are those who love the freedoms and liberties contained in the Bill of Rights, correct?

So..."talking about the Constitution a lot and being engaged in paramilitary training".. .Who does that sound like?? Oh, yeah....THE FOUNDING FATHERS and the people who founded this country.

It is no crime to engage in "paramilitary" training. We have the right under the Second Amendment to keep and bear firearms. You have nothing to "worry" about from people who own firearms and respect the Bill of Rights and the freedoms that every American should respect. Tyrants are the ones who worry about these freedom-loving people. You should worry about people who have no respect for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, and are working to destroy our freedoms and advance tyranny.

As far as fighting to overthrow the government, that is what the founding fathers and the people who founded this country did. They did so because the existing government was tyrranical.

Let me refer you to the Declaration of Independence:

Quote :

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. --Declaration of Independence http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html"

[Edited on March 5, 2004 at 12:02 PM. Reason : ..]

3/5/2004 11:58:10 AM

^ For a law student, you're dense and not to well informed. If you were, you would have noticed that the founding fathers changed ther position on armed revolution between the DI and the Constitution.

Article I Section 8:

Quote :

"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions"

Article III Section 3:

Quote :

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Article IV Section 4

Quote :

"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."

So you can see, while the founding fathers may have wanted to use revolution as a method of building a free america (and please note the declaration of independence was not a declaration of war, they would have been quite happy to have just been let go), they were quite adamant about the government doing everything in it's power to keep revolutions to a minimum.


And understand, the founding fathers WERE CRIMINALS, the fact that they suceeded is what makes them winners. They understood this and you should too. If you call for revolution, you aren't changing the laws, you are breaking all the laws, declaring yourself unbound by them and preparing to create a new set of laws. I think you need to think about the full ramifications of that.

3/5/2004 12:14:53 PM

Quote :

"you would have noticed that the founding fathers changed ther position on armed revolution between the DI and the Constitution. --1337 b4k4"

REALLY?! They changed their minds that they had the right to overthrow a tyrannical government? Yeah, right. Highly unlikely. If so, why didn't they turn the colonies back over to England?

The founders were setting up a government that would presumably respect basic human rights and freedoms. The quotes from the Constitution you reference refer to the founders view that it was not right for "insurrections" to occur against a government that was not tyrannical. Those quotes in no way demonstrate that they had deviated from their view that it was right and just to overthrow a tyrannical government.

As far as treason goes, yes it is technically "treason" to fight to overthrow your government...but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is morally wrong. The founders were guilty of "treason" for fighting for their independence from the tyrannical British government. But they were right to do it.

[Edited on March 5, 2004 at 12:37 PM. Reason : ..]

3/5/2004 12:32:40 PM

Yes, they did change their views. The constitution was very deliberately written, and if they had wanted to put in "The government shall have the power to supress rebellions except when the rebellion is because the government is corrupt and has violated the principles contained in this constitution" they would have written it. The beautiful thing about the english language is it allows you to very clearly express ideas. And it is quite clear that they felt it is the duty of the government to supress rebellions to preserve the wellfare of the people.

Quote :

"As far as treason goes, yes it is technically "treason" to fight to overthrow your government...but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is morally wrong. The founders were guilty of "treason" for fighting for their independence from the tyrannical British government. But they were right to do it. "

And the british government was right to try and stop them, just like our government is right to try and stop people here who are plotting armed rebellion.

3/5/2004 12:40:12 PM

Quote :

"And the british government was right to try and stop them, just like our government is right to try and stop people here who are plotting armed rebellion. --1337 b4k4 "

WOW. The British government was "right" to try to stop those fighting for American Independence?!! I assume you think the British government's tyrranical and oppressive policies were "right" as well?

Quote :

"Yes, they did change their views. --1337 b4k4"

It is HIGHLY, HIGHLY unlikey (no, implausible) that they generally changed their view that it is right to overthrow a tyrannical government. You cannot reasonably believe that. That is ridiculous. And once again, the Constitution IN NO WAY shows that they had departed from their view that it was right to overthrow a tyrannical government.

Do you realize what you are saying? Are you saying that the founders, if they had to do it all over, would not have rebelled against the British government?! They would have chose to live under the oppression and tyranny of the British?? PREPOSTEROUS!!!

Apparantly, you're general hatred of me is causing you to oppose me no matter what I say. Next, I'll tell you the sky is blue and you will argue against me.

Get a grip, man.


[Edited on March 5, 2004 at 12:50 PM. Reason : ..]

3/5/2004 12:46:07 PM

Quote :

"WOW. The British government was "right" to try to stop those fighting for American Independence?!!"

yes retard, the brittish government was right to try to stop the rebellion against them. What part of this don't you understand? The founding fathers were CRIMINALS (we established this already), it is the responsibility of th egovernment to stop criminals. The fact that the founding fathers suceeded is why we think it's a good thing. If they had failed, or even worse suceeded but failed to set up a working government, we'd hate them.

Look, it works like this, assume for the moment we have a government that is strictly constitutional according to your view of the world. If I go running arround shooting governemnt officials and other people because the government by having laws against muder is tyranicaly opressing my right to do what ever I want, am I correct and right to try and overthrow the government? Are the police and by extention the government right in trying to stop me?

Quote :

"It is HIGHLY, HIGHLY unlikey (no, implausible) that they generally changed their view that it is right to overthrow a tyrannical government. You cannot reasonably believe that. That is ridiculous. And once again, the Constitution IN NO WAY shows that they had departed from their view that it was right to overthrow a tyrannical government. "

No it's not highly unlikely. They just finished a bloody fucking war, it's likely they never wanted to see that again, they wrote the constitution very specificaly every word was chosen carefuly and every word that was left out was left out intentionaly. If they wanted an exception to which times the government should be allowed to supress a rebellion they would have written it in. They did not want people rising up against the government every few years and for simple reasons. The consitution is written in such a way that if you take up armed rebellion against the united states of america you are completely disregarding the constitution and planning on starting anew. Understand this please.

Quote :

"Do you realize what you are saying? Are you saying that the founders, if they had to do it all over, would not have rebelled against the British government?! They would have chose to live under the oppression and tyranny of the British?? PREPOSTEROUS!!! "

No I'm saying that the founding fathers believed that it was the right of the government to supress rebellions and that people do not have th right to take up armed rebellion against their government. If you are taking up armed rebellion, you are rejecting the constitution.

Quote :

"Apparantly, you're general hatred of me is causing you to oppose me no matter what I say. Next, I'll tell you the sky is blue and you will argue against me. "

Well, the sky is clear and it only appears blue due to the bending of light as it travels through the atmosphere.

3/5/2004 1:00:52 PM

^ damn, very nice 1337 b4k4.

Hey salisbury, I'm still curious about this below. A yes or no can't be too difficult for you, so could you please answer it?

Quote :

"Say salisburyboy, question for you. Is this the only msg board that you post threads like this and your others? If not could you provide some links? I'd love to see what people outside this board think of your claims."

[Edited on March 5, 2004 at 5:14 PM. Reason : idiot me screwed up the quote tags...]

3/5/2004 5:14:16 PM

I'm getting a headache reading this thread, but I'll hit a couple of the highlights

1. The Decleration of Independence IS NOT a legal document. Therefore you cannot cite this document as legal authority. You may cite it for evidence of what the founding fathers believed, but the Constitution was created as a living, breathing document. The founder's opinion is only one of many relevant factors.

2. The Supreme Court is the final interpretor of the constitution. If they hold that limited, random checkpoints are constitutional, then that is the law of the land.

For salisburyboy, a LAW SCHOOL STUDENT, to claim otherwise is preposterous. THE VERY FIRST case you read in Con Law is Marbury v. Madison, which states that "[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Interpretation of the law and it's conformity with the US Consitution is the very essence of judicial duty.

[Edited on March 5, 2004 at 7:30 PM. Reason : i can't spell]

3/5/2004 7:29:58 PM

^haha - sal's gonna get owned by a real law student

Phoenix University Online doesn't count

3/5/2004 8:33:56 PM

Editorial in San Francisco Chronicle blasts "Patriot Act II":

Quote :

""The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003," is a chilling sequel to the USA Patriot Act, passed shortly after Sept.11, 2001. It's already been dubbed "Patriot Act II." The draft legislation would reduce judicial oversight of surveillance, authorize secret arrests, create new death penalties and allow the government to revoke the citizenship of any American who is a member of -- or gives material support to -- a group designated as a "terrorist organization" by Ashcroft. ...Secret arrests? Expatriation because you belong to a suspicious political group? Unchecked surveillance? These are instruments of repression, used by totalitarian states. They are why American soldiers have fought -- and died -- in wars against fascism and communism. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., warned that "Patriot Act II" amounts to "little more than the institution of a police state." We call upon our congressional delegation, as well as Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, to vigorously challenge any such attempt to undermine constitutional rights. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/02/11/ED173500.DTL"

[Edited on March 9, 2004 at 9:09 PM. Reason : ..]

3/9/2004 9:01:29 PM

Editorial in San Francisco Chronicle suggests "Patriot Act I" violates the 4th Amendment:

Quote :

"And thanks to the hastily passed USA Patriot Act, the Justice Department has sweeping new powers to monitor phone conversations, Internet usage, business transactions and library reading records. Best of all, law enforcement need not be burdened any longer with such inconveniences as probable cause. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/07/28/IN244190.DTL"

[Edited on March 9, 2004 at 9:33 PM. Reason : ..]

3/9/2004 9:31:18 PM

^ Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong Read it yourself, I have gone through the trouble of pullin gthe relevant electronic survielence sections:

http://www.thebaka.com/rants/patriot/

3/10/2004 12:49:02 PM

"Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."

--George W. Bush, address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.


transcript: http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/


The message is clear. Either you blindly obey and follow the U.S. government in their "fight against terrorism", or YOU are considered a "terrorist" by the U.S. government.



[Edited on March 13, 2004 at 7:06 PM. Reason : ..]

3/13/2004 7:00:31 PM

ahahahah

TRANNY

3/13/2004 7:01:58 PM

More on the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act" (also known as "Patriot Act II"):

Quote :

"The recklessness of top Bush officials, as demonstrated here, is one of the reasons why Americans should be alarmed at the draft Domestic Security Enhancement Act that recently was leaked from the Department of Justice. The DSEA would give John Ashcroft (and effectively Bush himself) the power to officially designate organizations as "terrorist" and strip citizens of U.S. citizenship for supporting such organizations (Section 501). http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2003/bush_critics_equal_terrorists.html"

[Edited on March 13, 2004 at 7:11 PM. Reason : ..]

3/13/2004 7:08:56 PM

Alex Jones' brief analysis of "Patriot Act II": http://www.infowars.com/print/patriot_act/alexs_analysis.htm

On Section 501...

Quote :

"SECTION 501 (Expatriation of Terrorists) expands the Bush administration’s “enemy combatant” definition to all American citizens who “may” have violated any provision of Section 802 of the first Patriot Act. (Section 802 is the new definition of domestic terrorism, and the definition is “any action that endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State law.”) Section 501 of the second Patriot Act directly connects to Section 125 of the same act. The Justice Department boldly claims that the incredibly broad Section 802 of the First USA Patriot Act isn’t broad enough and that a new, unlimited definition of terrorism is needed. http://www.infowars.com/print/patriot_act/alexs_analysis.htm"

[Edited on March 13, 2004 at 7:21 PM. Reason : ..]

3/13/2004 7:18:23 PM

3/13/2004 7:28:24 PM

Quote :

"SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM. (a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping'; (2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and'; (3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and (4) by adding at the end the following: `(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that-- `(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; `(B) appear to be intended-- `(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; `(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or `(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and `(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'. (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: `(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331;' "

Please note that ALL sections of 802.4 must be fufiled for an act to be an act of terrorism.

God I wish you would quote people that actualy know what they're talking about.

3/13/2004 11:11:31 PM