Patriot Act Renewed! Senator Rand Paul Calls US "Police State"

Have you read those links? They are almost all about PROPOSED safeguards that HAVE NOT been successfully added.
At least half of the safeguards added (such as the FBI needing court orders to gather secret evidence from corporations), have since been removed.

Would we necessarily know all the times that it happened? The whole point of the Patriot Act is that the FBI don't have to justify their actions.

But people being wrongfully detained at Guantanamo Bay is old news, and I swear I heard this story about this Florida teacher being wrongfully detained because of the Patriot Act years ago; have been looking.

 

A lot of those safeguards some agencies have voluntarily started doing, they're not legally required, in fact senator Leahey's proposals for amendments to the bill would make some of those safeguards into law, but I doubt it'll be adopted later in the week.

On top of it though, the word "warrant" is essentially sacred in American culture.

 

And damn well should be.

 

no, no, i don't think your being rude at all!


there are a few others whom, have a "radical" history.
my "radical" history is, things like subscribing for years to publications like, 'the fifth estate,' an anarchist zine and, 'earth first! journal.
being a member of the green party does not help either.

 

Indeed. I like the fact even in the suburbs a lot of kids are taught from their teenage years "Never say anything to the police and never let them in without a warrant"

It's even better seeing your drunk friend exercise that right after the cops got a noise complaint and they hid about 15 underage people into a closet
"Sir have you been drinking?"
"Sure have, here's my ID"
"Are you sure you're alone?"
"Do you see people?"
"Well can we come in and look?"
"Do you have a warrant?"
"No"
"Pft, than no, now if you don't mind I'm tired and would like to go lay down" * closes door*

 

See, told ya they didn't give a shit about us.

 

I think there might be more to it than that.
I won't push it any further.
I've a good enough appreciation of why you think you might be on it.
Thanks.

I didn't read every single word.
My point was: Are there no safe-guards? Is there no scrutiny? There seems to be.
I take the answers are: Yes, there are. Yes, there is. There is.
Unlike a fascist dictatorship or a police state.

I guess not. To a degree it doesn't matter what draconian laws there might be, because those truly affected never see the light of day, let alone have their stories printed in newspapers etc.

With hindsight.

Here "Stop and Search" is within the Terrorism act.
When I was stopped and searched a few months ago, if I were that way inclined, I could have screamed:
"What?, you think I am a TERRORIST? Fuck YOU."
I think many Americans, rightly or wrongly, WOULD scream that.
My point is, I'm quite sure the Patriot act has portions within it pertaining to issues not relating to terrorism per se...
Just because it might be used doesn't mean it is all inherently evil, or wrong. Just a little bizarre. If that makes sense.

 

http://www.fifthestate.org/

You might wish to email the website and inform them not to have a payment method that might help the FBI put people on no-fly lists.
Just sayin.

 

Not just many, I'd say most.

It all does back to culture though. Forget the Patriot Act, there was a shitstorm brewing over whether police could look in the cell phones of people who have been charged and arrested since California ruled yes and Ohio ruled no.

 

I was being civil.

 

thats what you get for letting the Federal Government take the power out of the hands of the people.

 

America was set up as a place for sovereignty from abusive governments.

Whether 'freedom' is a true ideal or not; it's still kinda about it.

Privacy is a big part of that freedom; the Bill of Rights makes a pretty big deal about that, and that's one of the only things still universally taught in public high school Civics =P

 

The Bill of Rights actually doesn't mention privacy, though the supreme court has ruled numerous times it's severely implied. Most of our privacy laws have grown out of common law tradition though, it wouldn't be bad to make an amendment to the ol' constitution putting it explicitly into writing.

Also of interest, an article from NYT on the trans-atlantic differences between ideas of privacy vs freedom of speech on the internet.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/weekinreview/28liptak.html?_r=1

 

The 4th Amendment

good article.

 

Four amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure by the police and installs the need for probable cause for warrants, but that's just one aspect of a right to privacy. Many people find it surprising but the word privacy actually is never mentioned once in the constitution. But things like the fourth amendment have been more broadly applied to include privacy to the Griswold vs Connecticut which gave marriage privacy, to Roe vs Wade who's main function is on the fact women have a right to medical privacy.

 

I have nothing to add, your honor.

 

very good point. so what do we (americans) have? another 20 years before our revolution?

 

"Sooner or later, the people in this country are gonna realize the government does not give a fuck about them. The government doesn't care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare or your safety. It simply does not give a fuck about you. It's interested in its own power. That's the only thing. Keeping it and expanding it wherever possible." - George Carlin

Also, a recurring topic I see on these forums is an upcoming second American revolution. It's not going to happen nearly as soon as everybody seems to be predicting. It just won't. The vast majority of Americans do not and will not give a fuck until things get much, much worse.