Think the Patriot Act doesn't affect you? Think again!

Rich Lucibella:

With respect to your mention of this, that and some other thing all being "no big deal", one is reminded, at least I am reminded, of the tale of the minister in what I suppose was pre WW2 Germany.

Essentially, this minister, when confronted with all manner of strange goings on, opined that while perhaps troubling, they were "no big deal". Interestingly however, when it came to be his turn in the barrel, so to speak, there was nobody left to speak out.

In today's CATO Daily Dispatch (www.cato.org), which I glanced at earlier, I believe there was some mention of The Patrtiot Act, again. I'll go back to it, and if I come upon it, I will post it as part of this discussion.

Look for it later on tonite.
 
Rich:

The following is a "summary reference" to 15 June Cato Daily Dispatch.




Authorities Applying Patriot Act Provisions to Non-Terror Probes



“Federal and state prosecutors are applying stiff antiterrorism laws adopted after the 9/11 attacks to broad, run-of-the-mill probes of political corruption, financial crimes and immigration frauds,” Scripps Howard News Service reports. Timothy Lynch, director of the Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice and author of "Breaking the Vicious Cycle: Preserving Our Liberties While Fighting Terrorism," says: "The Patriot Act was designed to reduce privacy and increase security. It has succeeded in at least reducing privacy." In "More Surveillance Equals Less Liberty," he writes: "Too many conservatives have brushed aside grievances about civil-liberties violations in the mistaken belief that President Bush's political opponents are simply trying to dress up a partisan attack in noble-sounding rhetoric about liberty, privacy and the Constitution. The opposite is true. President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft have given their political opponents a just cause--namely, resisting the growth of a surveillance state."

If you hit the link in my previous post, 16 June Dispatch will come up. Look at right hand side of your screen, the archives box, and you will find a reference to the above. At the archive piece, the following will come up as "links" that take your to the articles mentioned, there are two. First in entitled Breaking The Vicious Cycle: Preserving Our LIberties While Fighting Terrorism. The second is More Surveillance Equals Less LIberty.
 
[Quartus]"Even though I believe the current chef really is a vegetarian"

.... I wouldn't be so sure of this. They all seem to have arisen from the same historical culinary school. Both George Bush, his father G H W Bush, and his grandfathers, and Kerry share fraternal relations in the same club. This includes Averell Harriman whose late wife Pamela not only ran Bill Clinton's campaign, but injected a substantial amount of money of her own.

Aside from the current difficulty telling "democrats" like Kerry from the "republicans" like George Bush, they all seem to share common denominators in their family background associations and business.

The "Patriot" Act is bad news on principle regardless of who occupies the WH or holds a majority in Congress.
 
The "Patriot" Act is bad news on principle regardless of who occupies the WH or holds a majority in Congress.
Click to expand...

Agreed!


And I agree about George the Elder. I don't think GW really is part of the inner circle. Alas - he's surrounded himself with his father's advisors, and people of like mind. They all have the globalist mentality. But GW has done some things that show HE'S not (slapping the U.N. around from time to time, for example), even though the overall effect is the same due to the kind of advice he constantly gets.
 
The following might be a bit off point, however previous posters had made mention of "airport security" and or "screening air passengers", that sort of thing. Also, the 9/11 Commission, in it's latest public hearings, or for that matter during the previous ones, so far as I can tell, hasn't seen fit to question why, with all the "information" that had been available, the airline pilots were not armed, AS THEY PREVIOUSLY WERE.

Neither does it appear that, with respect to their examination of who is doing what now, does this august body of notables, seem at all concerned about the fact that arming of airline pilots, actually REARMING said pilots, seems to be going nowhere, under the auspices of the agency charged with running the program, you guessed it, none other than the TSA.

We hear a whole hell of a lot about the possibility, check that, about the liklihood of more attacks, and who says that what worked once, won't at least be tried again, and yet all concerned, seem pretty much willing to let TSA dither along, "slow walking" the program to death, including this Commission, which one would expect, might certainly have something to say, given the fact that it was supposed to examine all aspects of the screw-ups that led to the events of 11 September 2001.

Unarmed and therefore defenseless pilots were certainly a contributing factor, or it seem so to me, and such plans as Osama et al may have had cannot gainsay that.
 
Instead of "rearming" pilots, George Bush, as the highest ranking in the executive branch, should simply have penned an EO scrapping all FAA and DOT regulations that might interfere with a commercial pilot flying any commercial aircraft. That was the way it was at one time, and there is no reason why it should not have remained so. Instead, there is now the complicated legislation, organization and funding for this and for the fly-marshall programs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top