I am involved in a leadership class sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce. There are 42 students/future community leaders from various businesses in town. The class started on 1/5 and will end on 3/18. We have different speakers each week.

Last week we had Ray LaHood, a Republican congressman who could potentially be the next Governor of Illinois. The second hour was allocated for Q&A. Social Security dominated the session. He thinks the problem with Social Security has been the congress itself, since they have been spending the excess collected since its inception. Obviously he supports Bush's position for privatization outwardly.

He brought out a very important issue/question regarding privatization. If the accounts are privatized and in a year in the future the people retiring lose due to the lows in the markets ala 2001 to 2003. Would the federal government be forced to bail out the people who lost out randomly due to the volatility in the market?

He got a little peeved with me when I questioned the Patriot Act? My question was to him was whether we were justified in giving out our civil liberties for the sake of safety or the appearance of it. and I used the following "Those who will give up essential liberties to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" by
Benjamin Franklin.

He also acknowledged that we completely dropped the ball in Africa in response to a question from somebody on Darfur.

give it to the man!

He brought out a very important issue/question regarding privatization. If the accounts are privatized and in a year in the future the people retiring lose due to the lows in the markets ala 2001 to 2003. Would the federal government be forced to bail out the people who lost out randomly due to the volatility in the market?

That means he's not familiar with the plan. The plan calls for allowing people to invest only in the balanced index funds, and over the long-term period. I contend that if such an investment is wiped out by the market, then you can definitely forget about government funds.

He got a little peeved with me when I questioned the Patriot Act? My question was to him was whether we were justified in giving out our civil liberties for the sake of safety or the appearance of it. and I used the following "Those who will give up essential liberties to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" by
Benjamin Franklin.

Do you know which essential liberties you gave up with the Patriot Act?

He knows more than what is being kicked around in the media and he did not become a leader by not knowing something that is of such importance . BTW, who has heard of stock market crashes in the US? The federal governement has never bailed out anybody in the past.

As for the 2nd point,

1. US citizens held as enemy combatants without charges indefinitely
2. Ordinary people put on terrorist watches and unable to get off even after proving otherwise
3. Violating citizen's rights by holding them on foriegn soil

YOu better believe it, that public leaders often don't know the details of things they're supporting, even though the devil is in them.

Under the plan that Bush is proposing, to have your investment wiped out would require a Great Depression like crash without recovery for a couple of decades.


None of these have anything to do with the Patriot Act.

Patriot Act:
Records searches. It expands the government's ability to look at records on an individual's activity being held by a third parties. (Section 215)

Secret searches. It expands the government's ability to search private property without notice to the owner. (Section 213)

Intelligence searches. It expands a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that had been created for the collection of foreign intelligence information (Section 218).

"Trap and trace" searches. It expands another Fourth Amendment exception for spying that collects "addressing" information about the origin and destination of communications, as opposed to the content (Section 214).

These two were precursors to the following

The Domestic Security Enhancement Act (also called “Patriot Act 2”):

Further dismantles court review of surveillance, such as by terminating court-approved limits on police spying on religious and political activity (sec. 312), allowing the government to obtain credit records and library records secretly and without judicial oversight (secs. 126, 128, 129), and by allowing wiretaps without a court order for up to 15 days following a terrorist attack (sec. 103);
Allows government to operate in secret by authorizing secret arrests (sec. 201), and imposing severe restrictions on the release of information about the hazards to the community posed by chemical and other plants (sec. 202);

Further expands the reach of an already overbroad definition of terrorism so that organizations engaged in civil disobedience are at risk of government wiretapping (secs. 120, 121) asset seizure (secs. 428, 428), and their supporters could even risk losing their citizenship (sec. 501);

Gives foreign dictatorships the power to seek searches and seizures in the United States (sec. 321), and to extradite American citizens to face trial in foreign courts (sec. 322), even if the United States Senate has not approved a treaty with that government; and

Unfairly targets immigrants under the pretext of fighting terrorism by stripping even lawful immigrants of the right to a fair deportation hearing and stripping the federal courts of their power to correct unlawful actions by the immigration authorities (secs. 503, 504).

These describe exactly the three instances I mentioned as to how Patriot Act has lead to the above along with other issues such as No-fly list.

As far my individual rights,

I have gone overseas about 15 times in the past 4 years. I hate that I always get pulled out for the so called "random" checks because I have a brown skin and dark hair (when it is colored). My wife who is white, never goes through that. I usually attribute it to the ignorance of the majority in the US who couldn't tell a hispanic from an Indian.

You can believe whatever you want. That is your choice.

You're not citing the Patriot Act. You're citing ACLU's summary of it.
Of course, even what you're citing has nothing to do with what you were talking about before.


That is not even a law in this country, it's a proposal that's been on the floor for more than 2 years without going anywhere. There was a law proposed last year that would reinstate the draft, that doesn't mean there's going to be a draft.


Once again, that has absolutely nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

Unlike the draft proposal, the Bush administration has put to practice most of the elements in the PAII without congressional approval or laws.

That's a claim that is very hard to swallow. Considering that you haven't shown to be true anything that you claimed, I find this hard to believe as well.

1. Jose Padilla, arrested but not charged after what three years
2. Several people including US senators put on NO-Fly list and were unable to get off for months. There are instances all over the country.
3. Interrogatiing in other countries to circumvent the constitution has been widely reported.

All three items I mentioned earlier have been proved. But how would you know? It is not like its has been reported in the media or anything. You must be totally averse to the truth. You keep making blanket statement without knowing the facts or twist it to fit your arguments.

Once again, none of the items you mention have anything to do with the Patriot Act. These things have indeed happened, but they could've happened prior to 9/11 as well. In 1941 this country held over 100,000 people in internment camps withot even a court order, 60 years prior to the passage of Patriot Act.

My point is that you simply don't know what's in the Patriot Act, but figured you'd put a government official on the tough spot by citing an overused cliche. Guess what, when you lock your doors at night, you trade essential liberty for temporary security. Do you think you deserve neither?

Yes it does, because part of the Act involves setting up a seperate military court in which to run trials. Even our Supreme court realizes that stinks. First, because that pulls the rug right from under them in terms of authority, and second, because the process and conduct in which these trials take place isn't regulated the same way a federal or state court is. There are different standards (if you could call them that) for warranting an arrest, and their are different procedures (including indefinate holds) for how the cases are handled. You don't think its a violation of citizen's rights not to be tried by the standards civil courts have set? Because in a military court thats exactly what is happening.

What specific section of the Patriot Act provides for "setting up a seperate military court in which to run trials" and how does it have anything to do with jb007's unrelated points?

Sorry, I need to dig up where a read it a few months ago. Here's one bit,



I think that has alot to do with what jb is saying in points 1 and 2 at least. 3 just came up in the news a few days ago, so I'm not as sure how it relates to this particular article.

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/Safeand ... 6603&c=282

Dolce, what the hell does this have to do with the unexistant provision to create military courts or with president's wartime authorities that also have nothing to do with the Patriot Act?

The Patriot Act is not the best piece of legislation EVAR, but blindly spewing out liberal talking points and old clichess without so much as trying to check if it's true or not will get you nowhere.

Its dated...I had newer material but my search engines are down today and its driving me nuts.

SEC. 106. PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY.
Section 203 of the International Emergency Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1702) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) at the end of subparagraph (A) (flush to that subparagraph), by striking `; and' and inserting a comma and the following:
`by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States;';
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by inserting `, block during the pendency of an investigation' after `investigate'; and
(ii) by striking `interest;' and inserting `interest by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; and';
(C) by striking `by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States`; and
(D) by inserting at the end the following:
`(C) when the United States is engaged in armed hostilities or has been attacked by a foreign country or foreign nationals, confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of any foreign person, foreign organization, or foreign country that he determines has planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilities or attacks against the United States; and all right, title, and interest in any property so confiscated shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms directed by the President, in such agency or person as the President may designate from time to time, and upon such terms and conditions as the President may prescribe, such interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes.'; and
(2) by inserting at the end the following:
`(c) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION- In any judicial review of a determination made under this section, if the determination was based on classified information (as defined in section 1(a) of the Classified Information Procedures Act) such information may be submitted to the reviewing court ex parte and in camera. This subsection does not confer or imply any right to judicial review.'.

Searches conducted in secret without judicial oversight, delay or not report to congress, as I previously mentioned and dolce repeated were a PRECURSOR to the "unrelated events".

Military tribunal exective order came in November 2001 right after the passage of the Patriot Act in October 2001. IT IS A PART OF THE PATTERN OF MASS DECEPTION.

The laws in PAII allow exactly the three things I mentioned. Since it is not law, Bush has rammed those using executive powers anyway.

PATRIOT ACT IS THE PRECURSOR AND IN MANY CASES RELATING TO ITEMS LIKE THAT WAS STRUCK DOWN BY THE JUDGE IS THE PROBLEM IN ERODING OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES.

P.S.: A great moment of originality: If you don't like the answers, just call them Liberals.
As for the over use of cliches, look up the dictionary, probably they have your picture as the king of cliches,
due to your faith-less arguments and extreme allergy to truth.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 13-27.html

As you can see, this is an executive order and is not, as you would have us believe, a part of the Patriot Act.

Your argument is a non sequitur. Yes, the section has expanded presidential powers. No, it doesn't mean that any of what you mentioned earlier could not be accomplished without the Patriot Act.


And yet it is NOT a part of the Patriot Act. Your original point was about the Patriot Act and the Patriot Act alone. None of the things you described as personally affecting you are a part of the Patriot Act.

The executive order came in November of 2001; it was completely legal, considering that the president has such powers during wartime. Whether it was a good decision or not is an entirely different matter. Whether it is a part of the Patriot Act is clear: it is absolutely not.

Civil liberties being eroded? That very well might be happening. But the fact is, instead of trying to look deeper into the issue before asking smug questions for the congressman, you decided to just go ahead and talk out of your ass. No wonder he wasn't very receptive to it.

You and dolce repeat Liberal talking points about the Patriot Act that are untrue. That's all I said and I'm sticking by it.


You better stop this, before you lower yourself to the "YO MAMA" jokes.

@Krem:

If you ever get your head out of conservative commentator's asses you might learn something.

For the last time,

Secret searches, no judicial or congressional oversight and expanding president's power as decreed in the PATRIOT ACT is the reason the 3 items I mentioned happened.

You are an extreme right-winger who never acknowledges the truth. No point in arguing with you. When the facts are shown, you say maybe the civil rights are eroding, but I will still stick to my story. Good for you.

Since you are the only person on these boards that knows everything :laugh: I will let you tell Yo Mama jokes to yourself.

These were your original three points. You claimed that the passage of the the Patriot Act meant those three things in particular. In fact, neither of the three are related to the Patriot Act. You never bothered to read it, and thus, you have dug a hole for yourself that you can't get out of.

Perhaps you will come out a little bit more knowledgeable on the issue out of this discussion, and will not make the same mistakes again. Perhaps you'll learn that opposing something does not mean that you have to lie about it. Or you can just go on feeling good about yourself after a couple fo sly questions. The choice is yours.

1. Item 1 has been achieved as an arrest without charge using expanded presidential power as decreed in PA1 without judiciial consent. This is as direct a connection to PA1 there is.
2. Item 2 is directly connected to expanded surveillance section of PA1.
3. Item 3 is a direct part of PA2 (which is not law) and the executive order that is being used to support this.

The third item is more of an executive order. All the executive orders have been used in conjunction with PA1 sections.

If anybody lied about anything it was you implying that erosion of civil liberties was just a liberal talking point, while later on admitting that has happened. Hopefully you won't make the same mistake of asking somebody what civil liberties of theirs were eroding?

The issue is not what stand alone PA1 does . The issue is what it has morphed into with added powers of some executve orders. It is broad enough in its secrecy and deception since no judicial oversight of any kind is required.

Whether you agree whether these are a direct or indirect result of PA1, those three examples are as real as they come and are still ongoing. PA1 along with some executive orders are the only laws that have used in these three items (since those are the only ones in the books being used against terrorists).