What happened to the Patriot Act?
May 7th, 2009
When Bush was president, I heard Democrats and Liberals bitching and moaning about the Patriot act nearly every week. Since Obama was elected… ELECTED. Not just inaugurated, but since his ELECTION, I haven’t heard one single peep out of the left complaining about the Patriot act. Why is that?
Of course the Conservatives are too consistent to start kvetching about it, since they were behind it during the Bush years. So it looks like the Patriot act is here to stay. But now that the Obama administration has declared all us crazy ‘pro life’ folks as ‘Right Wing Extremists’, maybe we should start being concerned about the Patriot act after all…
And what, you thought there was any chance of the Patriot Act going away? C’mon.
Nah, I just think the liberals who railed against it before and are silent now are hypocrites.
Hypocrisy makes for bad logic and bad examples, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it makes for bad politics. Any politician in the world could tell you that, democrat or not.
Not to defend them or anything, but I’m more interested in hearing you say why the Patriot Act is more or less worth defending/attacking now than it was a year ago, than in hearing you trivialize an incredibly important issue by focusing on the one thing everyone already knew, and didn’t care about.
I had nothing to fear from the Patriot act. Well, I didn’t until the Obama administration started flagging people who were pro-life, and gun owners as ‘Right wing extremists’.
I’m guessing they did that so they could have an excuse to use the Patriot act against us.
You know, as much as I dislike the Patriot Act, political profiling is not very different from racial profiling when it comes to how the PA is implemented. The pro-life movement HAS blown up abortion clinics and committed murder in the attempt to make their presence felt. This is definitely terrorism by any metric, and while very very few pro-lifers would actually go that far, it isn’t much different from being suspicious of arabs because a lot of terrorists happen to come from Afghanistan.
My point being that the poor justification and abuse of power that the Patriot Act represents was something to fear from the moment it was proposed; nothing has changed now the there’s a democrat in the presidency. So if your motivation for complaining about the Patriot Act is that it’s a poor and dangerous piece of legislation, then I’m behind you 100%, but if your motivation is that the democrats are asserting their power using the rules that republicans put in place, and you think it isn’t fair, then I think you’re as much a hypocrite as anyone.
Making the connection of psychotic extremist abortion bombers and the rest of the Pro-Lifers in America is as disingenuous as making the connection with Bill Ayers and the rest of the liberals in America. Conservatives wouldn’t try to broad-brush make anyone who was ‘pro-abortion’ as liberal extremists so they could get them on a ‘watch list’ to be spied on.
The Patriot Act was meant to keep us safe from foreign terrorists, and their domestic contacts in the US. Branding Pro-life, Gun owners, and VETERANS as ‘possible terrorists’ is insanity of the first degree.
Hi, Timothy McVeigh here! As a pro gun pro life veteran, I approve of this post, thank you for coming to our defense.
So since I read the report let me sum it up for you:
Things the report says:
Extremists include anti-govenment groups and hate groups.
Extremists could be angry about recent happenings which include: a black president, more gun laws, etc
Extremists may try to recruit: the unemployed, returning veterans, people who have a problem with immigration, people who have a problem with the united states perceived fall from power.
Lets keep an eye on these extremists yall.
Things the report does not say:
Veterans are extremists.
Anti-abortion folk are extremists.
(It would take some very tortured reasoning to pull this out, the word abortion is mentioned twice in the whole thing, once as a reference to an issue that white-supremacist groups exploit, and again as a possible example for anti-government groups to rally around)
So in conclusion, the only people branding pro life gun owning veterans as possible terrorists are Hannity, Rush, and Malkin. Because it makes them money, filthy filthy lucre. I guess also the people who went to the tea parties, because it makes them feel influential? Here’s a hint: Sponsored by Newt Gingrich: Not revolutionary, nor extreme.
To top it all off, there was a report by the same agency that came out 2 weeks later about leftwing extremists and cyberterror that talked about animal rights supporters and environmentalists.
From the report: “Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration. ”
So anyone in favor of states rights and a limited federal government is now a ‘right wing extremist’ to be lumped in with the likes of Al Qaeda? Or anyone who wants to save unborn babies, or make our borders secure? This is logical to you, is it?
Also I know it’s been made note of before, perhaps not here, but the fact that the Obama admin refuses to call Islamic fundamentalist extremists ‘Terrorists’ anymore, but calls us bible-believing gun owners ‘terrorists’ all over this report is just laughable.
Oh, and this bit is fun: “The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of
military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities
could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists
capable of carrying out violent attacks. ”
Did you want to revise your last post?
The report: http://wnd.com/images/dhs-rightwing-extremism.pdf
Okay, you’re reacting oddly, here. You can’t seriously say that the Patriot Act should only be used with respect to foreign terrorism and not domestic terrorism. Not only is there no real difference in execution, but it’s completely ridiculous to distinguish between them in the first place. Why should the government be allowed to surveil Americans with foreign contacts in terrorist networks, but not Americans who originate terrorist attacks themselves?
Secondly, my point was that profiling a demographic as a breeding ground for terrorism is a BAD idea. It’s unfair, impractical, and offensive. I was AGREEING with you. I was only making the point that the way the Patriot Act has been used in the past and the way it’s being used now is not different at all, except for the fact that you now happen to be in one of the targeted demographics now. The Patriot Act was always a bad idea; those people who only appreciate that fact once it threatens them are hypocrites, and I think you are one of them.
Yes, this report is unfair and biased. No, it isn’t because democrats wrote it. It’s because it’s a direct result of the Patriot Act that was written by republicans.
Carrion i think he was directing that at howdyfromtexas lol.
now i know that im on a watch list but i have ot wonder which. do you suppose they have a seprate one just for basement dwelling gamers with overwhelming opinions? I know im on em cause of the network of people i know who tend to do things on the other side of the law. Thieves, gangs people who like sony….sorry got off topic there. interesting thing in illinois, we cant have automatic weapons but we can have sawed off shotguns? does that seem bizarre to any one else? also it costs 20 bucks to change a semi-auto to full-auto, yet they try and pretend that by making people but only semi that they cant have full…
Because you have ONE true domestic terrorist attack in this country, Vs. every OTHER terrorist attack around the world, 95% of which (yes, just pulled that number out of my butt) were/are committed by Muslim Fundamentalists. Most of which emanate from the middle east.
So the idea of trying to blanket US instead of THEM is a huge difference.
Check it out for yourself: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm
“So anyone in favor of states rights and a limited federal government is now a ‘right wing extremist’ to be lumped in with the likes of Al Qaeda?”
I’m just repeating it now but:
The report says ‘radical groups defined in this report mostly consist of these types of people’
it does not say ‘Everyone who can be said to hold these values to any degree is an extremist.’
You and many others seem to think this report redefines the word extreme to include pretty run of the mill ideals held by damn near all of the rural United States. All squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares, that kind of thing.
I checked out your list at your request, down at the bottom it says this:
“It is not intended to be a complete or comprehensive account of all terrorist incidents during these years, and it is not an official expression of U.S. policy.”
Since you’re such a free thinker I’m going to assume you considered it for a second and determined that in fact the only domestic terrorist act was 9/11.
The weathermen and McVeigh apparently didn’t commit any terrorist acts, the Murrah building probably fell down, and that judge molotoved his own house cause he was an attention whore, just like the police that bombed themselves.
Lets run through a list, since I like them so much, of things you don’t consider terrorism:
-Hiding in a van, going all around the DC area and shooting random people in the head with a sniper rifle for weeks at a time. (Jihadist)
-Sending Anthrax through the mail to public officials. (Didn’t like gentiles, or abortion)
-Sending letterbombs to just about anyone from a cozy cabin in the woods. (Luddite)
-Bombing the olympics. (Former army demolitions specialist, and member of a radical religious group with the stated goal of ’stopping the holocaust’ that is abortion,’ you might say he had trouble reintegrating)
-Same dude blew up two abortion clinics and a gay bar.
That’s a far from complete list that only goes back to the mid 80s, and thats only those who acted from within this country, not foreign interests, in which case we can include things like the OTHER wtc bombing.
To tie this all up: The report said that there was a POSSIBILITY, based on past events, that people who fit a certain profile MAY in fact go out and commit acts of terrorism. With that in mind, what in that report is untrue.
wow, the formatting is miserable on that, it’s really hard to format in this little tiny box.
Also, if you want to complain about Obama, why bring up piddly shit like not dumping the Patriot Act and making us register guns (Oh no! What’s next? OUR CARS?). There are far more atrocious things you could point out, although maybe they’re only atrocious to that part of the population that thinks habeus corpus is kind of a big deal.
I think i might have stated this before but fanatics are bad. the thing that you are not getting is the our government loves generalities. I dont support abortion therefor i must be connected to or myself a bomber. thats they way they think. I attended a tea party because i think taxes are bad. therefor i must be a racist, Im a muslim therefor i must hate America and want to blow it up. see how that works? and as far as gun control goes…. what is the percentage of crimes committed with registered weapons? i actually want to know that bum am way to lazy to fetch it myself. by the way who the fuck gives the queen of england a fucking ipod? who the fuck gives the prime minister a bunch of dvds from the dollar store that cant even be played on his dvd player? thats right its OBAMATARD! dun dun duuuuuunnnn
Let me make sure I understand your argument here, hap. You’re saying that the Patriot Act would be okay as long as the power it gives the government to spy on Americans is directed solely at people who are profiled as being a potential terrorist for a foreign organization. Do I have that right? (PLEASE tell me if you think something else, because the above is terribly short-sighted reasoning, even aside from the question of how it’s even possible.)
If so, hap, you have to at least try to have a balanced opinion here. The first section of the list you provided consists of maybe 20% that relate to the middle east, and a fair few of those are not even directly connected to middle eastern terrorists. I skimmed the rest of it and it doesn’t look like the rest is too different.
But it isn’t even about quantity. If DHS knew beforehand the identities of the criminals, it might be POSSIBLE to distinguish between American domestic terrorists and Americans with connections to foreign terrorists, but obviously they don’t, and so there’s no point in even arguing about it.
way to pretend i didnt post carrion
Is there anything about “people who are for gay marriage or of the homosexual persuasion”? Seriously, was anything like that ever mentioned?
Yes, I have accepted that I am politically incorrect . . . and I refuse to go to therapy for it.
rsviesh:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-453199/Blundering-Bush-makes-ANOTHER-gaffe-winks-Queen.html
No one with half a brain gave a shit then, no one with half a brain gives a shit now.
I’m reminded of a quote form the movie “The Rock”. Sean Connery’s character is captured by some marines who are committing acts of domestic terrorism (because they felt the way the government has treated fallen US soldiers wascriminal and completely disrespectful to the fallen). The leader of this group (Ed Harris’ character) explains that the group is committing these act because they are hold true patriotism to the flag of the US and it’s serviceman. To which Sean Connery’s character responds: “Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious.”
Not that I necessarily agree with Sean Connery’s character, but it’s ironic how this act was named “the Patriot Act”. Especially now that it may potentially turn it’s focus towards “right wing extremists” within the US population.
howdy i understand. you are in fact a complete and total idiot. the U.K. is our biggest ally. you dont turn to your best friend and say here is a present. i could not be bothered to put any thought whatsoever into it. you also dont return a gift of solidarity which is equal to saying we dont need you fuck off. thats like returning the statue of liberty to france. and if you look at the gifts that were given to him, they all have incredible thought put in. (also giving the russians a button and not bothering to spell check) kunai….love that movie, and thank you for putting it as “right wing extremists” (howdy here is a lesson by doing that hes saying lets not fight)
Thanks rsviesh,
It seems to me that the more extreme someone’s philosophy is (whether right or left wing), the more likely they will claim to be patriotic. In this light, I think I might have to retract my last post. (If the “Patriot Act” is meant to target extremists, then I guess it is appropriately named.)
It’s unfortunate how the meaning of a virture like Patriotism has been tortured and twisted in modern times.
I almost can’t take it any more. That was my whole point. I was talking about actual ‘right wing extremists.’ The only people saying the tea parties and such were conducted by actual ‘right wing extremists’ are those that stand to gain ratings from it, not the government.
Nowhere did I say, and nowhere did the report say all the stuff you’re claiming in the ‘government loves generalities’ post. You are reading between the lines quite a bit, and while I’ll give you there’s a reason to be suspicious considering the way they’ve applied blanket treatments in the past. I’m going to go ahead and guess that Al Johnston from Des Moines won’t get the same treatment for being a pro-life straight ticket republican that Binyam Mohamed got for being brown. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
Not only does history repeat itself but now being gay is protected in Illinois. Which means ” that Al Johnston from Des Moines won’t get the same treatment for being a pro-life straight ticket republican that Binyam Mohamed got for being brown. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.”
Yep your wrong at least in Illinois you are.
The Patriot Act is not a bad idea. It is a gun. It can be easily misused. The hypocrisy of people currently in power to condemn it constantly until they recieve that power and then go completely silent ont he matter is incredibly unnerving. The report declaring that these people could form grops or or become a lone wolf is a cold hard reality but is also unnerving when combined witht he fact that the current administration refuses to acknowledge radical fundamentalist islam as terrorism.
My posts on the matter are late but it gives me a chance to sort the information presented out a bit better. And Hap, could we have a seperate topic for the current administration’s stance on gun control? Seems like a good topic.
A two party aversarial system of government (with one in power and one as “critic”) in which roles are reversed with each change of power is designed for hypocrisy.
Both parties basicly understand the same reality of the society being governed and what that society wants to here. When what the governed society “wants to hear” is not in tuned with its reality, anyone who wants to get in power will look like a hypocrite. They will have to tell the people what they “want to hear” to get in power and deal with the reality of the situation once elected. Telling the people the reality of the situation- when they don’t want to hear it – is one sure way to not get elected into power.