10-19-2005, 10:07 PM #1
The Patriot Act... steroids, WU, and money transfers
I was in the steroid section and I was told that I misunderstood the patriot act and was paranoid without any facts. This is the thread Western Union Scare?
So I found this information off the net with a simple search.
The patriot act is a multi-bill/multi-acts all rolled into a package that if voted against those that were pressing for it could say “you are un-American” or “you are against patriotism”; most of these previously bills and acts were thrown out of the house for being unconstitutional and infringed upon civil liberties.
So we had September 11th by October 24th the patriot act was presented to the house and they were asked to vote on it that day then October 25th moved to the senate and was voted on with only one person standing up and saying “we have not even read this and we are going to pass it?” he was trashed in the media at the prompting of Karl Rove, Bushes top advisor, then the patriot act was on the presidents table and signed into law on October 26th.
When did anyone have time to read this? Really… I have some more info off the net.
According to The Gallup Organization, the public is wary but ignorant about the USA PATRIOT Act. In January 2002, 47% of Americans wanted their government to stop terrorism even if it reduced civil liberties. By November 2003 this number had dropped to 31%, indicating either increasing concern about expanding government powers or reduced fear of terrorism. From 2003 to 2004, nearly a quarter of all Americans felt that the USA PATRIOT Act went too far, while most felt that it was either just right or did not go far enough. By 2005, the people polled were statistically divided half and half for and against the USA PATRIOT Act.
At the same time, only half of the people polled claimed to know some of the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. After the 2004 elections, the number of people claiming to know some of the provisions fell sharply.
Gallup Poll statistics from  and :
Does the USA PATRIOT Act go too far?
Date Too Far Not Too Far*
Aug 25-26 2003 22% 69%
Nov 10-12 2003 25% 65%
Feb 16-17 2004 26% 64%
Apr 13-16 2005 45% 49%
*Responded as it is a Necessary Tool, About Right, or Not Far Enough
What do you know about the USA PATRIOT Act?
Date A Lot Some Not Much Nothing
Aug 25-26 2003 10% 40% 25% 25%
Nov 10-12 2003 12% 41% 25% 22%
Feb 16-17 2004 13% 46% 27% 14%
Apr 13-16 2005 13% 28% 28% 29%
Another poll indicates that 52% of Americans are concerned that their civil liberties are being infringed by the administration's war on terrorism.
Outside the Act's scope
The stated purpose of the Act is to "deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes." One criticism of the Act is that "other purposes" often includes the detection and prosecution of non-terrorist alleged future crimes.
Using the Act to investigate alleged potential money-laundering activities
In Las Vegas, police used the USA PATRIOT Act to subpoena two stockbrokers for evidence in a public official corruption case against a strip club owner (who ultimately pled guilty).
The USA PATRIOT Act, Section 314 is a provision to investigate money-laundering activities. Accordingly, the federal investigators' actions did not exceed the authority of the Act. 
This includes money transactions through independent fund transferring companies.
Using the Act to investigate alleged potential drug traffickers
In September 2003, the New York Times reported on a case of the USA PATRIOT Act being used to investigate alleged potential drug traffickers without probable cause. The article also mentions a study by Congress that referenced hundreds of cases where the USA PATRIOT Act was used to investigate non-terrorist alleged future crimes. The New York Times reports that these non-terrorist investigations are relevant because President Bush and several members of Congress stated that the purpose the USA PATRIOT Act was that of investigating and preempting potential terrorist acts. Their statement is not consistent with the wording of the act, however, or with the non-terrorist alleged future crimes that are investigated and prosecuted under the act.
Analysis of comparisons to historical laws
• Reichstag Fire Decree, Germany, enacted February 28, 1933 after the Reichstag fire
The Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State (Reichstag Fire Decree) and subsequent Enabling Act that empowered Adolf Hitler to seize control of Germany are often compared to the USA PATRIOT Act. The similarities are that both were passed after an act of terrorism, both were passed quickly, both limited civil liberties with the expressed purpose of protecting the people, and both were used in excess of their expressed purpose. The English translation of Article 1 of the DRPPPS states that the decree intends "...to restrict the rights to personal freedom [habeas corpus], freedom of speech, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of letters, mail, telegraphs and telephones, order searches and confiscations and restrict property, even if this is not otherwise provided for by present law." The USA Patriot Act is not as explicit about its intentions, often wording the act in terms of what civil liberties and safeguards people have left.
The Reichstag Fire Decree differs from the USA PATRIOT Act in that the DRPPPS more explicitly seizes states rights and associates the death penalty with many offenses. Additionally, some of the USA PATRIOT Act has a sunset provision, whereas the set expiration date of the Enabling Act was dependent upon a succession of power, and the DRPPPS did not have a set expiration date. The USA PATRIOT Act and the Enabling Act were both passed by a freely elected Congress, whereas the DRPPPS was a "emergency decree" by the German president made at the behest of Chancellor Hitler.
Although the USA PATRIOT Act differs in some respects, the Reichstag Fire Decree and subsequent Enabling Act are cited as examples of how giving up civil liberties in times of crisis can be used to legally overthrow a government's constitution from within.
• Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA)
The AEDPA is the direct predecessor of the PATRIOT Act and contains many provisions that were maintained and expanded by the PATRIOT Act, including those relating to terrorism, FISA, immigration, and so on. See David Cole's book, listed below in the critics section.
• The Sedition Act of 1918 is sometimes compared to the USA PATRIOT Act because of the latter's perceived chilling effect on free speech. However, the Sedition Act had the explicit and specific purpose of quelling anti-government speech while the nation was at war. The Sedition Act was repealed in 1921.
• The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. The Alien Act allowed the President to arrest, imprison, and deport "dangerous" immigrants on mere suspicion of "treasonable or secret machinations against the government." If a deported alien returned, the President could imprison him for as long as he thought "the public safety may require." The Sedition Act made it unlawful for any person to write, print, publish, or speak anything "false, scandalous and malicious" about the government, either Congress or the Executive, if it was done with the intent to defame or to bring the government "into contempt or disrepute," or to excite the hatred of the people against the United States. See "Repeal the PATRIOT Act" by Jennifer Van Bergen, listed below in critics section.
• COINTELPRO is thought of as similiar to the USA PATRIOT act in that it was allowed because of fear of an enemy (the Soviet Union in this case) and permitted actions that would not be acceptable during peacetime. The primary simililarity in content was that invasion of privacy could be carried out in secrecy without probable cause if the investigator felt that it was necessary for national security.
Last edited by Mesomorphyl; 10-19-2005 at 10:11 PM.
10-20-2005, 10:33 AM #2
First, Wikipedia is a an online encyclopedia that all users can add information to. Be careful of this. Just type in "Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" and you'll see at the top of the page what I mean. Things are disputed heavily on this site. Secondly, I feel qualified in this area b/c I carry a B.A. in International Relations and Conflict Resolution as well as a minor in International Security Studies. I just completed my MA in International Relations, also with a focus on Security Studies. I think one of the best ways to understand the Patriot Act is through the post I am going to write. This is from a book, written by a well known academic and not from an internet site. Only reading from Internet sites and believing all you read makes someone a "sheeple"...in your own words. This is the post:
It is unquestionably the most outrageously caricatured aspect of the war on terror. Were you to believe its critics, the Patriot Act has given...nearly unlimited powers to detain, whip, and draw-and-quarter anybody and everybody with a library card...Critics of the act range from the ACLU on the left to Clinton-bashing former representative Bob Barr on the right. They have concentrated their ire on one small provision of the act, Section 215, that makes it easier for the FBI to obtain records from third parties as part of a terrorism investigation. Criminologist Heather Mac Donald has written, "The ACLU warns that with section 215, 'the FBI could spy on a person because they don't like the books she reads, or because they don't like the websites she visits. They could spy on her because she wrote a letter to the editor that criticized government policy.' Mac Donald notes that these 'charges are nonsense'.
"Critics of section 215 deliberately ignore the fact that any request for items under the section requires judicial approval. An FBI agent cannot simply walk into a flight school or a library and demand records. The bureau must first convice the court that overseas anti-terror investigations...that the documents are relevant to protecting 'against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.'
"The Patriot Act's intent is simple, and its execution is entirely within the bounds of the constitution. It merely removes roadblocks that had made it impossible for law-enforcement to follow the complex trail of evidence that terrorists and their sympathizers leave..."
"And its opponents cannot name a single- not a single instance- in which someone can claim to have had his civil liberties violated by the USA Patriot Act." Writer Jonah Goldberg notes: "Not only has the government never used 215, but the section doesn't even mention libraries...or any other secular holy sites allegedly imperiled by it."
You personally might not like the act but your recent posts have compared the U.S. to Stalin's U.S.S.R. It's absolutely absurd and baseless considering that under Lenin-Stalin, over 20 million Soviets were killed.
10-20-2005, 11:13 AM #3
I know what it does. But those that get tagged for an illegal activity(buying steroids ) that typically is a non-national security risk will not be protected by fourth amendment rights, which by the way is unconstitutional. Privacy will be invaded, and has been(check out democracynow.org). I compare the use of instituted laws to laws of 1933 Germany and Stalin Russia. We haven't had 20million killed(not sure if your number is right) but I was comparing laws.
My point is that if they obtained that info they will use it to prosecute. So that is why they want to track it... My point is that incrementally it can expand.
Do you think the patriot act is a good thing?
10-20-2005, 11:52 AM #4
Do I think the Patriot Act is a good thing? That's a very broad-based question. It has its benefits and its disadvantages but I hold that it is far more beneficial to our national security than it is dangerous to civil liberties...the "my civil liberities are being suppressed" is mostly far left biased hype. Anything has the possibility of getting out of control, no doubt, but I do not see the Patriot Act getting out of hand. It's kept in tact by judicial checks and balances. By the way, the Patriot Act can't be used to bust you for steroids if their purpose was a national security issue. The act itself cannot be used like that. My advice, which I don't think you need: be even more careful w/steroid purchasing...out smart the system
10-20-2005, 11:55 AM #5
FYI about my Lenin-Stalin stats:
Arthur Waldron is the Lauder Professor of International Relations at the University of Pennsylvania and vice president of the International Assessment and Strategy Center in Washington D.C.; he is also an author of several works.
Waldron states: "Mass murder by Lenin and Stalin in the U.S.S.R. (costing over 20 million lives)..."
The article continues but is actually a new approach to the history of Mao so the rest has no real relevancy to Russia. The stats are correct.
10-20-2005, 11:59 AM #6
Nazi law and rule under both Lenin and Stalin are in no way, whatsoever, comparable on any level, to the U.S.A. Patriot Act. I don't know if you are "left" "center" or "right" so I don't mean to offend: comparing Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia is left-wing hyper-exaggeration and also anti-Bush (anti-Republican) propaganda. My family, who still is alive, lived in Nazi, Germany and survived several camps actually giggle when they hear the news comparing the "act" to Hitler's laws. It's simply laughable.
10-20-2005, 12:21 PM #7Originally Posted by AIZ
10-20-2005, 04:00 PM #8
Hey, I never claimed to be a sole authority on the matter and I haven't reread my posts but if I said that you didn't know anything about the PA then I apologize for that. However, I think you understood what I meant when I wrote "giggle". It wasn't meant that they sit around and laugh. It means they giggle in a "these people have no idea how good they have it" kind of way. As for posting a pic of one of my family member's concentration camp numbers, why in G-d's name would I do such a thing? To prove something to you? I tell no lies and neither do my family members. They truly went through that horrible ordeal. Moreover, even if I did post a pic of a branded number, I wouldn't expect you to recant anything. A picture doesn't go against anything you've said...unless you are one that denies the holocaust but I don't take you for that type.
Last edited by AIZ; 10-20-2005 at 04:08 PM.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)