Patriot Act sneak-N-peek busts drugs?
- Thread starter sorcival
- Start date
and they say obama is socialist?i wish they would play this on FOX. oh and they can tap whoevers phone they want they outlawed the sale of art glass style bongs witch sent tommy chong to jail ect ect ... im thinking they just used it to break into large drug operations but it basicly means they can run into any of our houses...were are all the protest for this its not gov't messing with your insurence its gov't comming straight into your house .it makes me fuckin sick
...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 4th amendment is explicit and the Patriot Act is supposed to go after terrorists, not the flavor of the month. This genie has been let out of the bottle and won't be easily put back in.
The 4th amendment is explicit and the Patriot Act is supposed to go after terrorists, not the flavor of the month. This genie has been let out of the bottle and won't be easily put back in.
POWER once given is seldom if ever surrendered. It will probably have to challenged in the courts before the law is struck down.
Sorry to admit it but even Obama has publicly advocated the PA. I'm not suggesting he wants to violate drug dealers constitutional rights. The Justice Dept. is an entity of government that isn't subjected to presidential oversight anyway. It's usually the other way around.
The drug dealer figures in question were "fiscal year 2008."
EDIT:
Many of the act's provisions were to sunset beginning December 31, 2005, approximately 4 years after its passage. In the months preceding the sunset date, supporters of the act pushed to make its sunsetting provisions permanent, while critics sought to revise various sections to enhance civil liberty protections. In July 2005, the U.S. Senate passed a reauthorization bill with substantial changes to several sections of the act, while the House reauthorization bill kept most of the act's original language. The two bills were then reconciled in a conference committee that was criticized by Senators from both the Republican and Democratic parties for ignoring civil liberty concerns.[1] The bill, which removed most of the changes from the Senate version, passed Congress on March 2, 2006 and was signed into law by President George W. Bush on March 9 and 10th, 2006.
Sorry to admit it but even Obama has publicly advocated the PA. I'm not suggesting he wants to violate drug dealers constitutional rights. The Justice Dept. is an entity of government that isn't subjected to presidential oversight anyway. It's usually the other way around.
The drug dealer figures in question were "fiscal year 2008."
EDIT:
Many of the act's provisions were to sunset beginning December 31, 2005, approximately 4 years after its passage. In the months preceding the sunset date, supporters of the act pushed to make its sunsetting provisions permanent, while critics sought to revise various sections to enhance civil liberty protections. In July 2005, the U.S. Senate passed a reauthorization bill with substantial changes to several sections of the act, while the House reauthorization bill kept most of the act's original language. The two bills were then reconciled in a conference committee that was criticized by Senators from both the Republican and Democratic parties for ignoring civil liberty concerns.[1] The bill, which removed most of the changes from the Senate version, passed Congress on March 2, 2006 and was signed into law by President George W. Bush on March 9 and 10th, 2006.
indicapimp
Member
People just really need to understand this and get over if you are a republican or Democrat...One single Act of Terrorism and they ...the Government are trying to tear down our Bill of Rights. They, the progressives..."D" or "R" say that our founding principle are outdated and need to be re-written.
CanopyArchitect
New member
Hahahahahaha... did you actually believe that bullshit? When will people learn from history
.. hitler was just supposed to go after the terrorists, stalin was just supposed to go after the terrorists, moussollini too, and every other regime in the world. Thats the oldest trick in the book. They always claim its going to go after some specific minority group to get it passed, then apply it broadly once theyve gotten what they wanted. And as others have said allready, they never ever give that power back. Never. The government is just doing what all other governments right now are trying to do- keep people in a state of fear and take all their rights away. The real people to blame are the ones who voted for George Bush and those who voted for the other guy but are currently doing nothing to pressure the Obama administration to prosecute him and his buddies for their abuses of power.
Hahahahahaha... did you actually believe that bullshit? When will people learn from history
word. the US of A is starting to scarily resemble nazi germany in the early 1900's.
We the people need to buck up and start kickin some ass or these clowns are gonna own us. I mean they already tell us what to put in our bodies, how to feel, what to believe. For fuck's sake man, when did the public ever ask for that kind of help? We all know somethings not right..
M
movingtocally
What makes you say that? Even Senator Feingold, despite all his crisp language, closed by stating that he wanted to "impose additional safeguards to make sure this authority isn't abused."
IE, I want to get loud and post it on my Youtube channel, let the voters feel my outrage, then propose a meaningless "safety measure" compromise with the DOJ that does effectively nothing.
And this from the left. The Republicans think handing over your privacy is a part of being American. They won't say a peep.
Nothing will change. Low level nobody agents will have access to your shit in a massive information technology enclave, that, for the clincher, you helped pay for.
God Bless America.
Hahahahahaha... did you actually believe that bullshit? When will people learn from history
If you don't believe in something, you'll fall for anything. OK folks, we're getting ready to learn some history from CA.
That's interesting. I've never read a single quote referencing terrorism from those 3. Since you said "every other regime in the world", I guess Pol Pot was going after terrorists? Mao? It sounds like the subject of terrorism is all encompassing for you.
Just wait until you attempt to apply for government dole. You'll find more restrictions than you can count. You're wrapping a whole bunch of stuff into your very narrow point of view.
Alright. First off, I didn't vote for W. You should go to a site called Wikipedia. In the search field, type something related to rescinded laws in the US. There are MANY laws that have been struck down by the courts as unconstitutional. There is also example of Congressional law change, where the party in power changes or ends particular law.
Who is the "other guy"? What are you doing about abuse of power, CA? Let us all know when the president you voted for actually accomplishes everything they campaigned on. I'm not taking up for Obama as he's a little too mild on issues I feel are important. But I have to give the leader of the free world the benefit of the doubt. No politician has ever enjoyed intelligence in the campaign as they do in the Oval Office.
BTW, I don't think Obama promised to go after the Bush administration for war crimes and constitutional violations. I certainly wish he would, though.
"...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 above is excerpted from the 4th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
There are parts of the Constitution that are comparatively vague as the founding fathers were as divided as our current government. Therefore, constitutional scholars have argued context as a way to determine intent. In many cases, it is context that is argued, not actual words written on the document.
There are some parts of the Constitution (specifically the 4th amendment) that are more explicit. "...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 Patriot Act breaks this principal element.
If your talking about the passing of the Patriot Act, I share your outrage. Not sure what safety measure you're referencing but Feingold was the lone Senator to vote Nay. If you post on Youtube, please pass the link, I'd like to see it.
I also speak from the left but I can't speak for Republicans as a whole. People are people, there's good and bad. Same thing for government. There are those that want betterment as a whole and those that want to stay the same. Some want betterment for the few at the expense of others. That's what I have a hard time understanding.
I agree that technology will be exploited. I also agree we pay for all the good and bad our government produces. I don't agree that nothing will change. It'll get worse before it gets better, IMO.
I don't see why you guys are worried about this. I mean after all, why worry if you have nothing to hide, right?
I swear I'll blow chunks if I ever hear that again. Closed minded people actually believe this crap!
I swear I'll blow chunks if I ever hear that again. Closed minded people actually believe this crap!
LOL, I'll clarify. The majority of older folks back home in the south, when asked about the government coming in to check without a warrant have said this to me on many, many occasions. "Let em come, I don't have anything to hide." Or, "You'll only get in trouble if you have something to hide." They would actually open the door, show them the whole house, then offer them dinner when they were done.
They love this country. Believe in the founding documents and would be willing to die to protect their country. But I just can't understand their willingness to forgo their rights to unlawful search, or to give up their rights if the government told them, "don't worry, it'll make it safer for us."
Pisses me off every time I hear em say it. But, this is the remainder of "greatest generation" that still believe what their government has told them. They just can't wrap their pre dementia brains around the fact that their government is corrupt.
They love this country. Believe in the founding documents and would be willing to die to protect their country. But I just can't understand their willingness to forgo their rights to unlawful search, or to give up their rights if the government told them, "don't worry, it'll make it safer for us."
Pisses me off every time I hear em say it. But, this is the remainder of "greatest generation" that still believe what their government has told them. They just can't wrap their pre dementia brains around the fact that their government is corrupt.
I agree, rr! My 85 year old pops got pulled over for speeding and managed to bullshit his way out of a ticket. In conversation with friends, he bad mouthed the cop and all that shit. Just like rr said, if the feds knocked on his door for a warrantless search, he'd give em the keys to the house, shed, garage, etc.
So pops, to a degree will bitch about the police. He's just too old and conservative to have a general distrust of government. Funny thing, he's a liberal. I would think he could at least grasp the idea that Patriot Act drug busts are bullshit.
So pops, to a degree will bitch about the police. He's just too old and conservative to have a general distrust of government. Funny thing, he's a liberal. I would think he could at least grasp the idea that Patriot Act drug busts are bullshit.
What a suprise... Everybody knew the Patriot Act wouldn't be used the way it was suggested... It was a bunch of bullshit... Terrorism needs to be dealt with differently.. I dont know how but you can't take away peoples freedoms for the illusion of safey.. We are no better protected now then we were at the time of 9/11.. Maybe we are more alert and more paranoid but still unsafe... The problem was right after the attacks people were desperate for the administration to do something.. So The Patriot Act was passed as a way to show the people that the people in power were doing something..
But in fact they did nothing.. I would like to see some statistics (since they are the truth ha) of how many terrorists were arrested as a direct cause of The Patriot Act.. It can't be many.. The problem is this, now that the act is already here and since drug trafficing is still a crime, nobody is going to care that drug dealers were arrested because of evidence that was obtained illegally.. The majority of the population will say "well they shouldn't have been dealing drugs in the 1st place." That is the big problem right there.. The people aren't going to challenge the governments method of catching crimminals because of the simple fact the people have little mercy for crimminals.. But soon enough it will start being used to moniter everything.. Then that's when shit will really hit the fan..
One day just looking at pistols on Smith & Wessons website could lead to a raid.. And the police will say, "this person was planning on committing a murder." This is an example of the very extreme of the possibilties of The Patriot Act.. But it is wrong to think this type of scenario would never happen because The Patriot Act is already being used for things is wasn't ment for.. So we the people need to address it now so it doesn't get worse..
But in fact they did nothing.. I would like to see some statistics (since they are the truth ha) of how many terrorists were arrested as a direct cause of The Patriot Act.. It can't be many.. The problem is this, now that the act is already here and since drug trafficing is still a crime, nobody is going to care that drug dealers were arrested because of evidence that was obtained illegally.. The majority of the population will say "well they shouldn't have been dealing drugs in the 1st place." That is the big problem right there.. The people aren't going to challenge the governments method of catching crimminals because of the simple fact the people have little mercy for crimminals.. But soon enough it will start being used to moniter everything.. Then that's when shit will really hit the fan..
One day just looking at pistols on Smith & Wessons website could lead to a raid.. And the police will say, "this person was planning on committing a murder." This is an example of the very extreme of the possibilties of The Patriot Act.. But it is wrong to think this type of scenario would never happen because The Patriot Act is already being used for things is wasn't ment for.. So we the people need to address it now so it doesn't get worse..
That's the trouble with poorly interpreted law. The PA specifies terrorism as the culprit, plain and simple. I watched the assistant attorney general getting his as grilled by Senators Al Frankin and Russ Feingold. I imagined the AAG would try to draw parallels between crime and terrorism but the room was too hot for any of that bullshit.
oldschoolfarmer
Member
Glad to know you are a Republican. There is no other factual way to know how one would think. While you're at it, can you tell me whats jews think?
When people stop using blanket statements about parties and start using specific statements about the govt, we might get something accomplished.
America's Journey
If I remember correctly this wasn't a grass roots bill that had initial bipartisan support, it was initiated by a conservative ideological administration. Many yes votes were actually reluctant converts being called names in the pejorative and having their patriotism insulted. It was the same issue-oriented, propaganda type pressure for the 2002 elections that gay marriage was for 2004. Depending on how one voted had large implications for their reelection bid.
