BF2S Forums Trust us...we wont abuse the patriot act

IMO: 9/11 caused a rift in the way we approach foriegn/domestic affairs. I believe those who were of a decent age when the attacks occured are most likely going to agree with what the FBI did. Those who were still playing with tiddly winks are going to be like WTF!!! What happened to our freedom?

rawls2 wrote:

IMO: 9/11 caused a rift in the way we approach foriegn/domestic affairs. I believe those who were of a decent age when the attacks occured are most likely going to agree with what the FBI did. Those who were still playing with tiddly winks are going to be like WTF!!! What happened to our freedom?

huh....those that are at variance with the stripping of our constitutional rights -- regardless of the threat -- are NOT playing with tiddly winks as you put it.

The FBI abused this "power." You are correct when you state that the situation in the US has significantly changed in the US and to be honest this will be a continuing theme in the future because, how do you reconcile these inherently detrimental powers given to individuals in order to "protect" us, but at the same time its violating the constitution they have sworn to protect. Honestly i don't have a solution for this and the surveillance state which we are moving towards is not a pretty picture.

The government can listen to my phone calls, I have nothing to hide.  If it means catching terrorist bastards, then we should do it.  The world is changing and sooner or later I hope the United States changes in a major way.  We're talking a wall along our border where you get shot if you jump over them.  We are going to have to do major things if terrorist attacks happen in this country.  The Patriot Act is something that is meant to protect us.  The only time you should worry about it is if you are a terrorist.  Otherwise just feel safer and move on with your life.

chittydog wrote:

Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.
- Benjamin Franklin

Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.
- Thomas Jefferson

Except that we do both of those every day: laws are restrictions on liberty/freedom in order to preserve security.

Bubbalo wrote:

chittydog wrote:

Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.
- Benjamin Franklin

Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.
- Thomas Jefferson

Except that we do both of those every day: laws are restrictions on liberty/freedom in order to preserve security.

No.... laws are basic properties which are required in order for society to function properly.  Personal freedom is not the same as anarchy.

Mr.Pieeater wrote:

The government can listen to my phone calls, I have nothing to hide.  If it means catching terrorist bastards, then we should do it.  The world is changing and sooner or later I hope the United States changes in a major way.  We're talking a wall along our border where you get shot if you jump over them.  We are going to have to do major things if terrorist attacks happen in this country.  The Patriot Act is something that is meant to protect us.  The only time you should worry about it is if you are a terrorist.  Otherwise just feel safer and move on with your life.

Nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide. Good for you, Comrade. The exalted leaders of our Glorious Revolutionary American State thank you for your willingness to sacrifice the privacy of yourself and your fellow citizens and your embrace of an Iron Cur...   ...I mean defensive fortifications along our borders to keep out those seeking to undermine the purity of the Patriot's Paradise.

Can someone please explain to me how this paranoid psychotic government bullshite was bad when someone like Stalin did it, but good because the US is doing it? Tell you what folks. You want the government to be able to go prospecting in your colon with a microscope on a whim, volunteer yourselves for it and leave the rest of us the fuck out of it. You idiots that are only for this because the government is doing it to the people YOU think deserve it should really try reading some history on what authoritarian states do when they start running out of "enemies of the State". That's right kiddies, they make new ones. The pool of what constitutes an ideal citizen gets smaller and smaller; the spectrum of what's considered seditious or traitorous gets larger and larger. So in other words, before you accept your spiffy Brownshirt uniforms, you might want to inquire about where all the blood-mottled holes in the back came from and what happened to the original owners.

Blehm98 wrote:

its partially right because we are attempting to catch terrorists who would be willing to attack this nation

stalin did it so he could kill people who didn't agree with him



there is a rather distinct difference

But did Stalin sell it as "I want this so I can kill people who don't agree with me and who my paranoia says will betray me"? No. It's always the "enemy within". It's always "we're doing this for your safety, for the good of the nation". Leaders get their people to acquiesce to this shit by framing in language acceptable to the majority. The majority, being the dumb panicky animals that they are, go along with it until they notice their own friends or family members getting scooped up by the State's agencies and of course by then it is too damn fucking late. And it always starts with the people that the majority doesn't give a shit about or won't miss. Personally I have a pretty big problem with allowing the State to function like a serial killer; culling those seen as unworthy of living from our society, with attempts to bring it to heel only made when it eliminates someone falling into a "worthy" category. And much like a serial killer, once the State gets to the point where it feels brave enough to eliminate someone more high-profile, there's all ready a crawlspace somewhere packed full of the bones of victims nobody cared to notice.

The State should NEVER have this kind of power. Once given, the State will NEVER willingly let that power be taken from it. It will only seek to expand that power. It's especially stupid to want to give this kind of power to the State simply because you think your kind of people are in control of the State. It's especially fucked in the head to want to give this kind of power to the State because you think it'll only be used against the people you don't like. Sorry, hate to break this to you, but you're no less expendable than any of the rest of us. You can be replaced. Just because you support them in doing this doesn't mean they won't still happily ship your silly ass off to a concrete-lined hole staffed by the finest sadists money can buy if the photos of you staggering blindfolded and gagged between two soldiers on the way to your fate gets them another few votes or another big donation. Put simply, you're betting your own ass against a revolver with five loaded chambers because the guy holding to it your head says he's your buddy.

Stalin would never have been able to enact his purges without the complicity of a populace that, observing his agents kicking in doors and dragging off their screaming and beaten neighbors, eased their consciences with a mixture of "Obviously a traitor" and "Thank goodness it's not me". Hitler wouldn't have been able to liquidate millions of people without a citizenry that turned a blind eye as neighborhoods became ghost towns and they swept away the ash piled up on their windowsills and doorsteps from the crematoriums.

Oh but this time I'm sure they'll only get the bad-evil-nasty people. This time they'll get it right won't they. What's a few hundred years or more of human history versus the promises of a politician.

Yep, 2nd amendment.

Last edited by Stingray24 (2007-03-10 08:25:46)

Edit: I know you people are scared of Bush, but geeez.  Let's try to keep the facts in play and the bullshit off to the side.  Some of you act as if, without evidence, the President is driving around in a black SUV and  personally snatching anyone off the street that opposes him. Guess there must have been too many since the Dems swept the last election. 

Question: without the Patriot Act what power should we grant to the government so it can do it's job of protecting our country?  Certainly we have to give them all the tools necessary to track and capture terrorists. I understand the fear that this will soon extend to people that those in power do not like.  But I'm not sure what the other solution would be.  Live with the terrorist threat to ensure we're free?

Comparing this policy to Stalin and Hitler is a bit over the top.

You're assuming that the government is unchanging, but we still have elections and can change our government, as the last election showed.  That process is not being hindered in any way.   We're no where near 1984, but terrorist attacks will no longer be rare if we refuse to change our methods of fighting against it.

Bubbalo wrote:

Laws are a restriction upon freedom: freedom is, by definition, the ability to do anything you want.

Yes, but b/c of the Bill of Rights and our personal freedoms in America, we can determine whether each new law is either a threat to a personal freedom, or something put in place for stability and order.  Of course, nothings is completely black and white, but still.

Who's life here has changed because of the Patriot Act?