Patriot Act Renewed by 89-11 Senate Vote. People with Common Sense are Not Surprised

The Senate renewed the Patriot Act by an overwhelming 89-11 margin of votes, including favorable votes from 33 out of 44 Democrats.  Note that the Patriot Act had passed by a 98-1 margin the first time, back in 2001.  Reasonable people would interpret the overwhelming bipartisan support of the Patriot Act, in two instances over four years apart, as evidence that this was never a controversial issue among thinking people.  They would be right.

Yet, there is a lot of noise outside the mainstream about how the Patriot Act is a bad thing.  Let's apply basic logic to deconstruct these arguments for what they really are :

1) "It reduces our civil liberties.."  There are many possible problems that could theoretically occur, just like the US military could theoretically take over the country and enforce a police state, but there has been no example of an abuse actually occuring under the Patriot Act.  Most of the people who claim this are the same people who feel convicted child molestors should not be punished for their 'misunderstood' lifestyles.  Therefore, you can pin them back to the real world :

"Please give me specific examples of liberties you have lost.  No hypotheticals, just actual examples of events that have occured"

Your opponent will have no answer and will seek to hastily change the subject.

2) "The Patriot Act was passed in haste after 9/11.  Most Senators did not read it."  Each Senator has a support staff that summarizes large documents for the Senator.  Some may have skipped over the material, but to suggest that *all* of the 48 Democrats who were part of the 98-1 vote in 2001 in favor neglected to read the summaries provided to them by their staffers, is absurd. 

Even if that were the case, then how does one explain the 89-10 vote to renew the Patriot Act in 2006, over four years after the first vote?  Ask your opponent about this in a way that puts the burden of explanation onto them (which they will hastily retreat from) :

"Why did Senators Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, Reid, and Obama vote to renew the Patriot Act in 2006, even after years of protests over it?  They had time to think about it, yet it passed 89-10.  Why?"

_____________________________________________________

Of course, we know that there are two types of people who oppose the Patriot Act :

1) The 'Fashion Sheep' or 'Useful Idiots', who like to be told what to think.  They listen to one statement on television, memorize it, and feel secure that their opinion is a sufficiently informed one. 

2) The 'Fanatical Anti-Americans', the fifth-columnists who view America as a force of evil, and truly are rooting for the terrorists. 

Opposing the Iraq War can be a reasonable position for a patriotic American to take, if that person offers alternative, practical suggestions on how to aggresively fight terrorists.  But, if you find someone who opposes both the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, yet offers no alternative suggestions on how to fight the terrorists, then it is logical to conclude that some of these people are part of group 2), and are not actually on America's side.  Normal Americans wrongly give these fifth-column fanatics too much of a benefit of doubt, and fail to judge them by their actions while assuming that they value their own lives more than their hatred of America.  They do not, and are more than willing to die in the process of obstructing any efforts to fight terrorism. 

This fifth column comprises 8-10% of the US population, and we cannot win the War on Terror until we recognize and thwart this internal enemy.  The Patriot Act is a strong tool to do this, as it is a lightning rod by which many anti-Americans expose themselves. 

More on the opposition of the Patriot Act as a barometer for Anti-Americanism is here.

If you seek to genuinely learn about the PATRIOT Act, go here.

The comments section here will be entertaining, as fashion sheep will repeat the same points already deconstructed in the article, and will flee when questioned about alternative methods to fight terror.  Enjoy.

Update : This article is criticized on Daily Kos.  Read their views too, but the reply is precisely what is anticipated in the article above, and the author has refused to answer the same two questions when posed to him.  He is proud to be opposed to something that passed 89-11 in the Senate, so clearly lies far outside the mainstream of American society.

Also, this person does not seem to have any interest in actually stopping the operations of terrorists.  I will change my opinion if he condemns the terrorist attacks in New York, London, Madrid, Delhi, Beslan, Bali, Kenya, Tanzania, etc. and offers suggestions on how to prevent such attacks. 

Patriot Act, 9/11, anti-terrorism, anti-Americanism, leftists

Comments

[Jim,MtnViewCA,USA]

I don't know a lot of details about the Act.
As I understand it, the Patriot Act allows the gov't to use against terrorists the tools they use against organized crime.
Are there exceptions to this? Or is this a good working def'n of what's involved?

[GK]

Jim,

The second link in the article describes the details of what the act is.

Yes, it allows the CIA and FBI to use methods to fight terrorists that were previously used against organized criems. It also lets different agencies share information, which might have prevented 9/11 if they could have done that before.

[anon]

please tell me this is a parody?

[GK]

Nope, it's dead serious. Anything that passes 89-11 in the Senate, after 4 years to think about it, is not a controversial issue for the mainstream, period. One can choose to be outside of the mainstream, but then should be honest about such.

[dweeb]

"Anything that passes 89-11 in the Senate, after 4 years to think about it, is not a controversial issue for NORMAL people, period"

THis is the most fashion sheep logic I've ever seen. The Senate is made up of POLITICIANS who vote based on any number of motivations. You're basically saying that if 89 senators jump off a bridge, we all should follow, because they're, well, senators, and they're, well, bipartisan. Seems that a bipartisan alliance is opposing it - when was the last time Bob Barr and the ACLU agreed on anything? Thus, your own argument turns against you.

Cites that Kerry and Rodham-Clinton voted for it mean nothing - last I checked, they weren't exactly libertarians.

If you want to change minds, you need to come up with something better than that. Also, the whole NORMAL people appeal is idiotic, too. What's NORMAL? That's a statistical concept. Statistically, NORMAL for high school seniors is to have experimented with drugs - do you want your kids to be NORMAL like that?

The PATRIOT Act has many reasonable arguments for and against it, but neither seem in evidence here.

Your challenge that someone come up with an alternative is easy - closing our southern border would do FAR more good than the Patriot Act.

For 70 years, a far better armed enemy, with thousands of WMD's and top-notch delivery systems wanted the USA off the map, but we survived - by the threat of overwhelming retaliation, not by moving our population into bomb shelters. The KGB made Al Quaeda's best look like the Girl Scouts in sophistication, yet we didn't need the Patriot Act to deal with that threat.

Certain provisions represent direct curtailment of our rights. The library and bookstore provision is particularly onerous. No, I can't give you an example because any uses of it are SECRET.

The National Security Letters are another major issue. These are not substantially different from the Writs of Assistance cited as one of the abuses of in the Declaration of Independence. Again, those receiving National Security Letters are not allowed to reveal this, so again, your example challenge is quite convenient.

I support only some parts of the Act, yet I could come up with far better arguments in support of it than anything you've offered here. Perhaps that's why anon thought it was a parody.

[GK]

dweeb,

You oppose something that got an 89-11 vote. It is safe to say you are far out of the mainstream. If all of them are wrong, as you say, maybe America is not the right country for you (although Britain and The Netherlands have implemented security measures far stricter than the US Patriot Act, BTW).

At least you support some provisions, but a claim that monitoring library records in order to track terrorists (who use the Internet from the library to avoid being traced), is onerous, is absurd.

Sure, closing the border would help. Why not do BOTH that and the Patriot Act? They are not mutually exclusive, you know.

So, answer these questions, if you think you are right :

1) If you oppose library monitoring, what is your alternative suggestion to track terrorists, who use the Internet from the library to communicate with their team members?

2) What should have Bush, Rice, etc. have done before 9/11, to prevent 9/11?

Very simple questions. Let's see what you say.

[jeffolie]

I support the Patriot Act, but just because I am feeling grumpy I am presenting an opposing point of view I copied.

[GK]

Thanks. I'll read that over the weekend as it is quite long.

I am interested in *reasonable* opposition viewpoints to it. But with the ACLU, their motives in relation to the safety of American people are questionable at best..

[GK]

Have you given further thought on the subtle yet influential activities of the fifth-column in America?

[jeffolie]

I am not knowlegeable on the size and scope of fifth columnist in America. I am aware that radical groups have used charities to gather money for terrorists. Some politicians are supportive of terrorists or useful tools for them. Here is an article:

First, Islamic "moderates" deny that groups like Hamas are terrorists.

Second, Islamic "moderates" deny that preachers and mobs chanting "Kill the Jews, butcher the Christians" should be seen by Americans as a threat.

Third, Islamic "moderates" do not oppose the extremists, but show solidarity with their extremist fellow Muslims; make excuses for them; bitterly denounce American journalists for publicizing the existence of these groups; and, most significantly, describe any attempt by America to defend itself from Islamic terrorism as an expression of "anti-Muslim" bias.

In making this last argument, the "moderates" on the Charlie Rose panel didn't seem to realize what they were revealing about themselves and the community they represent: If opposing Islamic terrorism is anti-Muslim, then Islam is indeed inseparable from terrorism. Alamoudi and his fellow "moderates" thus provided a more profound indictment of Islam than anything in Stephen Emerson's chilling documentary about the extremists.

The "moderate" Muslims' insistence that Americans must see nothing, say nothing and do nothing about Muslim terrorists in our midst should give us an idea of what life will be like in this country when Muslims achieve real political power here. Thanks to the Clintons in particular and the U.S. political establishment in general, and thanks most of all to America's suicidal immigration policy of the last 35 years, America's quickly growing population of Islamic "moderates" have already started to acquire such power.

[KnightErrant]

"This fifth-column comprises 8-10% of the US population, and we cannot win the War on Terror until we fight the enemy within. The Patriot Act is a strong tool to do this, as it is a lightning rod by which many Anti-Americans expose themselves. "

May I interpret you as saying you believe that the ultimate effect of the Patriot Act will be the arrest and imprisonment of 24 to 30 million Americans for treason?

[GK]

KnightErrant,

Not at all. What Ward Churchill does is not illegal by any means, nor is the publishing of Abu Ghraib photos 20 times on the cover of the NYT, nor is donating money to groups that defend terrorists in court. But it certainly is with the intent of undermining US security, and comprises of deliberate fifth column behavior.

Read the article. Opposing the Patriot Act, and the Iraq War, and any other anti-terror measures the US takes, while simultaneously excusing the violence of the terrorists, does reveal what side a person is on. They may not have broken the law, but are certainly contributing, either actively or passively, to inflict harm on America.

[mark twain]

"We teach them to take their patriotism at second-hand; to shout with the largest crowd without examining into the right or wrong of the matter--exactly as boys under monarchies are taught and have always been taught. We teach them to regard as traitors, and hold in aversion and contempt, such as do not shout with the crowd, and so here in our democracy we are cheering a thing which of all things is most foreign to it and out of place--the delivery of our political conscience into somebody else's keeping. This is patriotism on the Russian plan."

[GK]

mark twain,

Your lame and phony response is already anticipated as per the article. Theoretical statements like that tell us nothing about your principles, only answers to real-world questions do.

Answer two simple questions :

1) What are your alternative suggestions on how to stop terrorists from operating in America?

2) Why did it pass 89-11 in the Senate, with many Democrats voting for it, after having 4 years to think about it? Does this mean your opinion is greatly different from that of the American mainstream?

Answer these two questions, otherwise you will not convince anyone that you actually care about keeping Americans safe from terrorists.

[petomai (twain)]

Not trying to convince anyone, GK. Just a little quote from a true American genius to quicken the flow in your greymatter. Freedom of opinion is yours. Think of those words more as an invitation to reconsider.

Personally, I've found it wise not to get too deeply entrenched in any dogmatic position, right or left, as adherence to ideology is equivalent to intellectual death. Ideology numbs our faculties, gunks-up the machinery of reason. It is stuck thinking, thinking that is dead, claiming to know everything and refusing to learn anything. Again, right-wing and left-wing, Islamist and Christian Militant, Goebbelian Fascist and Trotskyite Communist, Freemarket Fundamentalist Libertarian and Anarcho-Syndicalist Punk.

Besides, dissent is the engine of democracy. It is good and healthy to countenance the counter-arguments to our own positions, to hear the admonitions, the old and hard-earned words. Lest we forget our fallibility. Lest we allow unmitigated emotion and dumb animal reactivity to get the better of us.

No?

No—we are above that sort of childish thinking, here.

That said, on to your questions. Firstly, they are not "simple" at all. They are, in fact, hugely complex and multivalent and just as geopolitically intimidating as they appear to be. They are questions that demand deep respect and heavy consideration, questions that are clearly without any simple, cure-all answer. So here, in my humble estimation, are a few tiny pieces of some tiny pieces to the answers.

1) Assume that your house is littered with rotten food, and consequentially teeming with cockroaches. While you’d just love to sit there with a can of Raid all day and kill the little creatures dead, one by one, savoring their last little twitches and slaking your thirst for revenge, probably the better idea is to clean up the rotten food and scrub out all the filth. If the environmental conditions invite cockroaches, the cockroaches will not stop coming, no matter how many of them you kill or how many roach hotels you erect. Even if you leave their bodies out, “as a warning to the others”.

So—how do I propose to stop terrorists operating in America? Begin by asking where these terrorists came from, and why. Then attempt to rectify the ill conditions that allow them to flourish. Find out why these terrorists are so deprived of social opportunity that they choose to be suicide bombers, find out why and how economic inequality has prevented the poor and uneducated from reaping the benefits of the natural resources extant on their very own land. Find out what it’s like to be occupied, to have, say, a Saudi military base next door to your house in Cleveland. Reconsider our absolute historical stonewalling of enactment of the international consensus on the Israel/Palestine dispute, a straw man argument though it may be. That is just for starters.

Basically, I am saying that we need change the conditions. And, if we stopped for a second to find out what these violent and blind fundamentalists have been on about all this time, maybe we would see that the best way to do this is probably not by invading and occupying Muslim countries, nor by abdicating the very philosophical foundations of the homegrown democracy we aim to protect.

Also, I am not afraid of terrorism in the first place. I was living in Washington, DC on the day of 9/11 (yeah, it was scary…Iraq is scary like that every day, and so are many other places in the world…and it didn’t make US too prone to diplomacy and peaceful reason), and have since resided in Los Angeles. I suppose I am just asking for it, but I do find it curious that the people who live in cities whose population are at significantly greater risk of suffering terrorist atrocities tend to oppose measures like USA PATRIOT ACT when it comes to “keeping them safe from terrorism”. Just a thought. I am, I also hasten to remind you, by no means a liberal.

The bare-bones reductionist reality of the situation is this: it only takes one individual to commit an act of terrorism, and global socioeconomic/geopolitical conditions being as they are, the supply of those individuals will be without end. We could monitor every last keystroke and thought of every person on earth for a thousand years and still not “defeat terrorism”. There will always be terrorists until the scales of economic opportunity are leveled worldwide.

2) Does this mean that my opinion is greatly different than the American mainstream? My initial answer is, I sure hope so. The day I find myself in intellectual lockstep with mainstream America (a great and noble country grown temporarily sick, both in spirit and in taste, the land of American Idol and processed food, anti-intellectualism, cheap pseudo-spiritual pageantry, myopia and militarism, savage aggression…a far cry from NYC in the 1920s, surely…) is the day Rick Santorum gets gay-married.

Even worse than that, though! Do you really believe that Congress represents anything more than the interests of capital? Really? Bodies swing from government to the private sector like pendulums, doing themselves expensive favors and reaping the rewards. 89-11? So what. Who gets the contract? Who gets the money? 89-11 means that war is a dangerous liability for politicians, the consequences of which nobody wants to own. It means that war is profitable.

Anyhow, I’m not into that whole ‘anticipating your response’ thing, but I’m only interested in hearing well-thought out responses to this lengthy slightly disorganized screed of mine, so save any critiques on long-windedness or ivory-tower whatever. Let’s think together. Let’s talk. Let’s figure this out.

Cheers

-P

[GK]

petomai,

1) I don't subscribe to your suggestion that poverty and lack of opportunity, coupled with American mistreatment of Muslims, is the reason for terrorism.

If that were the case, why the attacks in London, Madrid, Bali, Beslan, Jordan, Egypt, New Delhi, etc? None of these were directed at America, and some these were against other Muslims. 5 of the above 7 were not even in countries that are part of our Iraq coalition.

On the flip side, poor, unemployed people in Latin America, India or Southeast Asia are not committing any terrorism.

In fact, the 9/11 hijackers were not poor at all, but from upper-middle class families.

But I agree with you that we need to change these conditions. The establishment of a democracy in Iraq could be the first step in doing just that. Iraq now has a very fast-growing economy, even faster than that of China.

Plus, your point about urban people at greater risk being less worried does not mean they are giving this appropriate thought. Europe is at more danger from their demographic shift to Islam than America is (as seen in France, Denmark, etc.), yet they are less worried. That could be more an indication that they have lost an interest in preserving their society, and no longer want to make sacrifices for it. Their lack of interest in producing children is also an indicator of their apathy towards the long-term future of their society.

What is your response?

2) As flawed as our two-party system is, if one does not have faith in our elected representatives to respond to what their voters believe keeps them safe, then America may not be the best country for them. An 89-11 vote on something that the majority of the people want is not a controversy, period.

Patricularly when there is an active fifth-column operating in America, and much of the opposition to ANY measures the US takes in keeping Americans safe comes from this group. I am not saying you are part of this group by any means, but you have to admit that there are people in the US who are secretly cheering on *any* opposition to America, including one that conducts beheadings and suicide bombings. When they oppose both the Patriot Act and Iraq War so vehemently, yet refuse to offer alternative suggestions other than a claim that America somehow is getting what we deserve, that tells the remaining 90% of the population that such measures may actually be effective in pursuing America's best interests.

[petomai]

GK,

I think that the international spread of these attacks actually speaks precisely to my point. America, as you know, neither stands nor acts in a void. The arc of world economic order(of which the US is merely a centerpiece, even a figurehead, seeing as China could demand that we buy back all their US Treasury bonds whenver they see fit, and the whole thing would come tumbling down just like that) over the last forty or so years has bent, in stark contradiction of MLK's seminal words, towards injustice. Even the Project for a New American Century (in the 2001 paper Rebuilding America's Defenses) begins with the assumption that the progression of globalization entails an ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor. This, the PNAC admits, will cause resentment and armed resistance, necessitating the projection of US military power to quell any challenges to the status quo. So as power and wealth are more tightly centralized into developed nations, we begin to see a blurring between the actions of nation-states and multinational corporations, who become the prime geopolitical actors, and they-- like the terrorists-- are stateless.

Then we must think like a terrorist-- how does, say, an Arab terrorist strike back against this amorphous, stateless system that is the root of his grievance (on every level from cultural aversion to economic impovrishment to western hegemony to Israel/Palestine), that has a lock on his resources, and the full weight of the US military behind its enforcement? Well, there are two options. Either go nuclear or use terrorism/guerilla warfare. That's about it. Terrorism, as has oft been noted, is a tactic, not a philosophy. They are going to strike at local governments whom they believe to be complicit with the international powers (most Western, some, like India, not) that are, to their minds, pinning their country to their floor. They are going to strike at symbols and centers of Western economic dominance, from the WTC to the embassy next door. That is why they're international. Because their grievance is international. America is just the most obvious target

And again, not trying to defend it, just look at it objectively.

And while I understand that many terrorists are educated (and am acquainted with the intellectual lineage of educated terrorists like Ayman al-Zawahiri down from Sayyid Qutb and early Islamist thought), you are not going to find many educated people willing to kill themselves on public buses. No-- the dirty work must be done by the poor and the easily convinced. Terrorist leaders are nothing if not cynical.
And asa for the 9/11 hijackers, I hasten to remind you that six of the nineteen "hijackers" are still alive (this is a FACT, by the way, and by citing it I am not endorsing any inside-job theory. Just the obvious reality that the official 9/11 Commission Report is a hogwash from start to finish). Even the FBI has admitted that we can't prove these nineteen men did it. And that speaks to your point. These3 men WERE educated, and were therfore not used as suicide soldiers.

As for South America, what about the EZLN (the Zapatistas in Chiapas)? What about FARC (corrupt as they may be)? What about the rising alliance between Chavez (who is methodically buying up huge strategic resources in the region, consolidating a new sort of Western OPEC, and reaching out to poor constituencies in many Western nations with discounts on gasoline for the un-moneyed (notice that the US govt is investigating Citgo for its program of offering cheap gasoline to the American poor, rather than, say, Exxon, who is price-gouging the average working American into the floor).
So, while they are not suicide bombing, they are a much greater threat to American power, as they are politically legitimate with massive popular mandates, and with the aid of an ascendent China could well do us some serious damage.
Back to tactics again.

As for Europeans not interested in having kids, well, I think that this is more a function of class/standards of living than anything else. The American upper-class has very few children, also. And as far as preserving culture is concerned, I am an advocae of the futurist position posited by F.M. Esfandiary-- there are no immigrants, only irelevant borders. Culture needs to mix and mutate. It is how human society evolves as a whole, for good or ill.

2) 89-11 -wise, you and I are probably just going to have to disagree straight up on this one. I am entirely jaded by our federal government, but I know that the strength of America is that it can change. We can change it . That is precisely why it is the best place for me. Because it allows dissatisfied citizens to alter what irks them. Nor am I concerned about the existence or non-existence of any controversy regarding USA PATRIOT ACT. In my own estimation, it is still wrong and entirely contrary to the Constitution. I don't care if I'm the last one saying it, to me it's still true.

Not sure about fifth-column arguments, as I've not really read much on the matter. I'll dig around and get back at you on that one though.

Thanks for the thoughts,
-p

[John]

GK,

I'm wondering, why are you so obsessed with not being out of the mainstream? I attend symphony concerts, which I am sure is well out of the mainstream these days. So, if statistics are telling us the truth, is actually SAVING MONEY, as the country on a whole had a negative savings rate.

So WHAT if 89% of Senators voted for something? Why should you, I or anyone else base our opinions on how many people agree with us? Perhaps being outside of the mainstream is a reason for making quite sure you aren't totally losing your head, but you seem to essentially be using this 89% figure as an actual substantive argument, which, frankly, I do not understand in the slightest.

[GK]

John,

The huge margin of the vote exemplifies the degree to which the far-left is in opposition to the wishes of the majority of the US population. Even prominent Democratic Senators will not risk pandering to the far-left (which includes the fight-column left) and lose the bulk of their voters.

Most leftists insisted that the Patriot Act was passed the first time because Democrats read it in haste. Now, they have had four years, so that excuse does not hold water. The next step is to say 'they're all wrong'.

Now, if you oppose the Patriot Act, please answer the following two questions :

1) What are your alternative suggestions on how to stop terrorists from operating in America?

2) In your view, is terrorism merely a response to American mistreatment of Muslims, and it would go away if we changed our policies? In your answer, take into account the attacks in London, Madrid, Beslan, Bali, Amman, Egypt, and Delhi, which were not targeted at the US.

[DB]

I think it says quite alot about the people running this site that they name themselves after a turn of the century fascist movement. Look it up for the deluded neo-cons who refuse to believe. "futurism"
This is from their manifesto. Strike any cords with you devotees out there? Probably. But I bet you wouldn't admit it publicly.
"#9 We will glorify war—the world’s only hygiene—militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of freedom-bringers, beautiful ideas worth dying for, and scorn for woman.

#10 We will destroy the museums, libraries, academies of every kind, will fight moralism, feminism, every opportunistic or utilitarian cowardice."
F.T. Marinetti

[GK]

DB,

I noticed you cannot answer the two simple questions the article asks of people like you. This merely proves the point of the article.

1) What are your alternative suggestions on how to stop terrorists from operating in America?

2) In your view, is terrorism merely a response to American mistreatment of Muslims, and it would go away if we changed our policies? In your answer, take into account the attacks in London, Madrid, Beslan, Bali, Amman, Egypt, and Delhi, which were not targeted at the US.

[NOE]

typical of neo-con hacks, putting words in oppositions mouths to produce their paper tigers. My own view is that the Islamic fascists should indeed be dealt with harshly as they no freinds of a liberal democrat such as my self, at all. I made so such statement as you claimed in #2. The problem arises when extremists on "our side" erode the constition thus yeilding the same results. Many components of the patriot a ct are indeed common sense such as the cross linkage of info between agencies. However in matters of law it is exactly the hypotheticals that must be taken into account of any legislation. Otherwise Supreme court justices wouldn't bother arguing cases now would they? As for point #1 maybe you should ask a number of constitional lawyers for a workable answer that gives agencies the proper power they need without eroding our rights, and not an average citizen who has every right to be wary of making a "wartime" piece of legislation" (which historically tramples rights) permanent.

[NOE]

P.S. I'm still curious about your motivation behind naming yourselves Futurists though. What were you thinking?! Or finally honesty from a group of neo-cons?

[petomai]

DB:

while i am with you in spirit and cause in this thread, I feel obligated to point out the Futurist movement to which to refer (not to be confused with the contemporary futurist movement (of which I see no traces of ideologically anywhere on this site)) was an Art thing, and only satirically political. It was more or less a series of ridiculously hostile cookbooks and half-baked elaborate means of frightening and confusing people (a derivation of the manifest love of War for War's sake). They also hated spaghetti,a s a part of the same manifesto to which you refer. They were fascist, yes, but only in a very art-y way that had almost nothing to do with reality. FOr a real futurist, dig on F.M. Esfandiary.

cheers to you good sir
-p

[ATS]

Regarding the silly attempt to link this blog with fascism, see if you can deny that fascism was and is a socialist movement, just as totalitarian and repressive as its sibling communism -- which leftists like yourselves refuse to condemn or criticize.

NOE wrote:

"However in matters of law it is exactly the hypotheticals that must be taken into account of any legislation. Otherwise Supreme court justices wouldn't bother arguing cases now would they?"

Try saying it again, except this time make sense. Supreme Court justices don't "argue" cases before their own court.

NOE also said:

"As for point #1 ... the proper power they need without eroding our rights, and not an average citizen who has every right to be wary of making a 'wartime' piece of legislation' (which historically tramples rights) permanent."

Just another hysterical lie from a Bush-basher not meriting serious consideration. BACK UP YOUR CLAIM that any single person's rights have been or could be violated by the Patriot Act. Can't you Democrats find a single shred of evidence that the Bush administration is, has or even could have been violating people's civil liberties?

Or are bumper sticker slogans and the hope that nobody will ask you to back them up all you've got?

Also from NOE:

"typical of neo-con hacks, putting words in oppositions mouths to produce their paper tigers."

Well then, will you be the 'real' tiger and ANSWER THE QUESTION? You have a problem with the Patriot Act. Fine. So then, what's YOUR solution to the problem of terrorists among us trying to attack America? What would YOU rather your government to do to prevent future terrorist attacks against Americans?

You and the Democrats will not answer these serious questions because your goal is to bash Bush, not defend the country or fight Islamic fanatics trying to destroy America. If you disagree, then just answer the question. What is your left-wing alternative to being tough on terrorists and staying several steps ahead of them as the Patriot act allows the government to do?

So far, your leftie inability to form a coherent thought is why no sane American -- liberal or conservative -- takes your anti-Patriot Act hysteria seriously, and why you can look forward to many more election-year thrashings.

[ATS]

Petomai said:

"As for Europeans not interested in having kids, well, I think that this is more a function of class/standards of living than anything else. The American upper-class has very few children, also."

You're making the nonsensical claim that most Europeans are members of the "upper class". The declining trend in Europe's population began well before WWI and correlates to Europe's rejection of traditional Judeo-Christian values -- and its growing fascination with the dark and ugly side of humanity (as reflected in most European art and film).

Europeans would rather stay single or have abortions and gay marriages than reproduce, hence their need to import millions of unassimilatable and anti-Western Muslims to keep their crumbling socialist welfare states afloat. But for you that's not a bad thing, as it's precisely your dream for America.

"And as far as preserving culture is concerned, I am an advocae of the futurist position posited by F.M. Esfandiary-- there are no immigrants, only irelevant borders. Culture needs to mix and mutate. It is how human society evolves as a whole, for good or ill."

You'd prefer ill of course, because for you American values and strength are what's wrong with the world. You want American values of personal responsibility and heterosexuality indoctrinated out and replaced with the failed socialism and anti-family principles of the "upper class" Europeans you so admire.

America has always welcomed and absorbed legal immigrants willing to better themselves by working hard and contributing positively to society. Why is that not acceptable to you? You seem to be advocating unrestricted illegal immigration. Over 40% of the prison inmates in California are illegal immigrants. Why do you desire more of this?

" ... USA PATRIOT ACT. In my own estimation, it is still wrong and entirely contrary to the Constitution. I don't care if I'm the last one saying it, to me it's still true."

To you only those positions which weaken America's resolve and abilty to defend itself are "true". The desire to see America turned into an impoverished, authoritarian and socialist Third World country is the only consistent thread throughout your postings.

You oppose the Patriot Act not on the basis of facts but because opposing it fills an emotional need. The America which denies undeserved success to you and others lacking marketable skills must always be the in the wrong and the villain, hence you invent a mythology that excuses you from having to change and make something of yourself.

If you disagree with this, then once again, simply back up your claim with evidence and axamples that the Patriot Act violates any part of the Constitution, civil liberties, or any other laws.

[onemansopinion]

Let's sum up the Left's arguments against the Patriot Act:

"BUSH IS SPYING ON MEEEEEEEEEEE!
HALLIBURTON!
KARL ROOOOOOOOOOOVE!
THE ILLUMINATI! SKULL AND BONES!
BLACK HELICOPTERS EVERYWHERE!
WAR FOR OIL! BUSH LIED, KIDS DIED!
RACISM! HOMOPHOBIA!
RELIGIOUS RIGHT-WING THEOCRACY!
STOLEN ELECTION!
OH, IT WAS SOOOO MUCH BETTER WHEN CLINTON WAS PRESIDENT!
SAVE US, HILLARY! SAAAAAAVE US!
AIIIIIIEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!"

Yeah, that's pretty much what the "rational, tolerant progressives" have to say on this issue...

[GK]

onemansopinion,

You are right. Look at all the comments here, where leftists come by, parrot talking points that are already anticipated and debunked in the article, and then can't answer simple questions posed directly to them.

[petomai]

oooh...too bad. I was out of town for a week and didn't get to finish this fun discussion. It's probably too late for anyone to read this, but i'll give it a shot regardless:

GK! You sadden me...after failing to respond to any of my points you dismiss me as a 'leftist'? ATS is not worth responding to, but you? Even though we disagreed at least you were open to exchange. And now, me, put off for a 'leftist'! Sigh. The endless parade of strawmen...

[GK]

petomai,

Exactly what were your points? You talked a lot about the causes of terrorism (much of which I agree with), but didn't really offer a solution to confronting the dangers we face.

Plus, your claim that Europeans are more 'upper-class' than Americans is absurd. America has a higher per-capita income than France or Germany, yet Americans (even wealthy ones) produce many more children than Europeans. You are dead wrong on that one.

Regarding the Patriot Act, which part of the constitution does it violate? What alternatives do you suggest to monitoring and arresting terrorists operating on US soil?

BTW, why don't you respond to ATS? He seems to have put forth a very good dismantling of you.

[petomai]

Poor wording on my part...I didn't intend to claim any upper-classnedness on behalf of Europeans...what I meant to say was that, economic reality being as it is, it costs more and more money to raise children with a reasonable standard of living, even with both parents at work. Americans and Europeans are used to certain standard of living, and even the poorer among them have incredible advantages over the poor in, say, Afghanistan. My point is that both Americans and Europeans are accustomed (this should ring a bell for all you angry divorcees) to a particular lifestyle, however lower-middle class that lifestyle may be, and are frequently unwilling to compromise it and disadvantage their own children. How does a household with a combined income of under 100,000 US manage to put more than two (and even that is stretching it) children through college? Hell, a college degree doesn't even do it anymore...without a master's degree one is pretty much screwed for a decent job. And a decent job, I'll remind you, is the only way to survive in an American city of any size and cultural weight.
Also, the whole purity of culture argument stinks to high heaven. We wouldn't have algebra, for God's sake, without the Arabs (or Arabic numerals, for that matter). To think that the intermingling of cultures is somehow bad spits in the face of scientific and cultural progress, and is not even worth countenancing.

USA PATRIOT ACT violates this part of the Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and 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 important point here is "but upon probable cause"...the nature of secret seizures and sneak-and-peaks is totally antithetical to this ammendment (particularly in regards to broad-spectrum data-mining operations which have no particular target save for free-floating packages of language). Case closed. And, again, I am not afraid of terrorists operating upon American soil. One either bites the bait or one doesn't. The world is no different today than it was on 9/10, and only those who were politically ignorant until this day are any more surprised or afraid than they were then. They should have been listening to bin Laden when he declared war on us in 1998. That was the time for fresh, unreasonable fear. It is long since passed. The world is an ugly, violent place, and no matter where you are you are subject to a bad turn of probability and a bomb going off in your face. I'd rather take my chances on the metro than allow the government to know what I'm reading. The gamble of living an independent life, I suppose. This is a simple Libertarian position (and a very right-wing one, at that).

As for ATS, good god...look at this garbage: "You'd prefer ill of course, because for you American values and strength are what's wrong with the world. You want American values of personal responsibility and heterosexuality indoctrinated out and replaced with the failed socialism and anti-family principles of the "upper class" Europeans you so admire."

Oh yeah? Is that what I'd prefer? You know me so well.
I don't take kindly to myopic extremists telling me what I think, particularly when they are gross simpletons who talk about ridculous constructs like 'anti-family principles'...
Honestly...and the idea that anywhere on this thread I have assumed a "left-wing" position is politically ignorant.

Everything I've written here is a thought from my own mind, no recitation of talking points or words put into the mouths of others. ATS's grandiose backwoods horeshit drags down the discourse and leaves us all a little worse off. (I say this after having worked for five years in DC, where even the staunchest "right-winger" wouldn't touch his idiotic proto-fascist (and racist, I might add) positions with a ten foot pole).

It's endlessly amusing to me that people scoop each other into camps of thought like 'leftist' and 'rightist'...they are helpful terms, but have NOTHING to do with how the world works. They are distractions from the money game, and if you can't get that through your head, you're already lost.

cheers,
-p

[Lisa Gilliam]

Thanks guys,I was getting really ticked by this halfwits insistence on not given a straight answer to a simple question especially one that is very serious such as national security.Since you airheads can't and refuse to give your solution on how to fight terrorism,I have two words for you maybe you have heard of them SHUT UP!I've had it with your mindless prattling!we don't need mindless pratttle when our very existence is at stake!

[petomai]

Hello, Lisa. You're right. Our existence is indeed at stake. The terrorist, however, are not the ones who threaten it. FISCAL INSOLVENCY is. FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY and WORTHLESS TREASURY BONDS whose tangential existence is a function of Chinese whim...yes, these are threats that face us. Can terrorist speed this process? Yes (particularly when oil is involved). However, a hundred dead here and a thousand dead there make little difference in the life or death of the larger country. No, what will kill us are the economic consequences of our fiscal irresponsibility. All true conservative principles have been abdicated by the federal government (actually, on this point, check out what Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, archconservative and chief architect of supply-side economics, or, in the common parlance, "Reaganomics", has to say about the Bush administration's hopeless profligacy and foolishness, both diplomatically and fiscally).

We are living-- literally-- on money borrowed from the Chinese, the Russians, the French, and the Germans, among others. You think about what that means and come to your own conclusions.

Our money is far better spent in increasing stateside production and indigenous economy, breaking the chains of neoclassical economics that erode the American middle-class (how is everyone's retirement plan feeling, by the way?) and plunge the global poor into desperation, disease, and violence. Better this than sinking our money into an unwinnable war and an indefensible data-mining operation on American citizens. To paraphrase Mohammad Ali, the greatest of all time, peace be upon him, ain't no al qaeda ever spy on my library card and tap my phone calls.

Engage these points, please, Lisa.

blessings,
-p

[ATS]

Petomai,

Please enlighten a "fascist simpleton" and answer the simple questions posed to you:

1.) You said you wanted open borders "for good or ill". America has always welcomed and absorbed legal immigrants willing to better themselves by working hard and contributing positively to society. Why is that not acceptable to you? You seem to be advocating unrestricted illegal immigration. Over 40% of the prison inmates in California are illegal immigrants. Why do you desire more of this?"

2.) You said the Patriot Act was violating the Constitution and civil liberties. Once again, simply back up your claim with EVIDENCE and EXAMPLES that the Patriot Act violates any part of the Constitution, civil liberties, or any other laws.

3.) If the Patriot Act is as terrible as you claim, then what would YOU want your government to do INSTEAD, in order to stop terrorists among us from attacking you and your fellow citizens.

Will you answer these questions and demonstrate that your criticisms of current policy are made in good faith, or, will you continue to avoid them and demonstrate the characterization of you as a frustrated anti-American is probably not far from the truth?

[petomai]

OK ATS, I'll bite...

1) To start with, tell me from what publication you get this 40% figure. Although secondly, who really cares, because the thinking person would ask themselves...why is it the U.S. interest to keep it thus? You can't tell me for a second that any country who can unilaterally invade a soveriegn nation on the other side of the world can't get rid of who it wants to when it wants to on its own soil. Please. The fact is, the PRISON INDUSTRY IS A HUGE LOBBY/SPECIAL INTEREST AND IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT (BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY THESE AND SIMILAR LOBBYSISTS) TO KEEP IT FULL. The prisons create jobs in economically depressed towns where there is no other work and the people are so poor and beaten down that they could really care less if a prison is dropped on their backyard. There are companies like Aramark who provide food to institutions, other compaines contracted to clean them and keep their records. The prisons must stay full because it is essential to our economy, and the easiest people to keep them full of are the most socially and economically disadvantaged, to wit: your aforementioned illegal immigrants and black youth. A man far wiser and more famous than myself once said: "Perhaps it is this multitude of laws which is responsible for this multitude of crimes."

So, to sum up: IT IS ALL ABOUT MONEY. IF YOU THINK ANYBODY IN GOVERNMENT CARES ABOUT YOUR IDEOLOGY, YOU ARE HOPELESSLY DELUDED. BELIEVE ME.

Also, I call for unrestricted immigration everywhere (not just USA) as a goal we may one day reach, with a great deal of vision and hard work.

2) Yes, I did. Read my posts. It's called the fourth ammendment and I quoted it directly.

3)Answered this one, too. Read my posts. In fact, I've answered EVERY SINGLE QUESTION, in numbers, no less, that has been asked of me. So get off it and engage my actual points. I want thought-out rebuttals.
Anyway, again, I'm not afraid of terrorism and I simply don't buy the boogeyman thing. It's been a mainstay of American foreign policy since the beginning, and it's there to distract you from the econommic realities that effect your life.

Frustrated? No, quite satisfied. As long as you are angry, I am satisfied.

Cheers, Idiot,
-p

[ATS]

Petomai,

1.) The statewide 40% figure is cited in the local broadcast news media when discussing the prison situation in California, and was recently repeated in connection with the prison violence in LA county between black and hispanic gangs. If for you the issue is only "money", taxpaying people pay billions every year for services provided to illegal immigrants such as emergency health care and education. Being on the low end of totem pole in terms of income and skills, this may not concern you.

2.) Exactly WHICH provision(s) of the Patiot Act violate the 4th Amendment? For decades the government has had the ability to do everything the Patriot Act allows against organized crime, and no Supreme Court case has overturned it. Why are you against the Patriot Act using the exact same legal powers to stop terrorists?

Numerous terrorist plots and cells have been stopped by the Patriot Act, including in Columbus, Los Angeles and Buffalo. Sane Americans realize this, which is why your side consistently loses national elections.

3.) There we have it. Despite 3000 murders on 9/11, a constant stream of threats from Al Qaeda, and the capture and breakup of terrorist cells in the US since then, you aren't worried about your country, your neighbors or your own life. Normal people do care for their lives and families, and do want terrorist murderers dead or in prison. Suicidal crybabies like you will always be upset by this. Thanks for admitting as much.

[petomai]

Almost, ATS. Not asingle "sleeper cell" captured in America has been convicted. The two in Lackawanna who had attended a training camp (one of whom quit in the middle, injured and unable to adapt to the lifestyle) had been monitored by the FBI for years and found to be kids with misplaced machismo and no follow-up. Check it out.

The sneak-and-peak search, through which the government is not obligated to inform a suspect of their actions until after the fact violates both the spirit and the letter of the fourth ammendment.

What is my income level, by the way? Ha. You're grand.

[ATS]

Petomai,

A terrorist named Pharis was caught making plans and materials to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge soon after 9/11. A Somali Muslim immigrant was stopped from blowing up a mall in downtown Columbus. Last year a cell in Los Angeles which planned to attack synogogues and US military facilities in the area was broken up. The Lakawana Arab youth had Al Qaeda terrorist training in Afghanistan in violation of US laws. The Patriot Act allowed law inforcement to act upon the information, which they could not before due to the Clinton-era wall of separation between intelligence and law enforcement which only the Patriot Act abolished. There are certainly other cases of successful thwarting of terrorists that the public will not know about.

With these successes and the steady barrage of Al Qaeda propaganda transmitted to America-hating jihadists around the world through Al Jazeera, only a committed anti-American could be as angry and unhappy as you are about these successes and the legal tools that made them possible.

Parrot the ACLU's nonsense all you like, the so-called "sneak and peek" provision is nothing new and already existed for the investigation of criminals -- a legal tool which the Supreme Court (the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution including the 4th amendment) has never abolished.

Why does the fact that the Patriot Act is actually stopping terrorists and making it much harder for terrorists to conspire and attack deepen your misery?

Fortunately, the vast majority of Americans don't share the suicidal mentality of an ostrich like you who denies that terrorism is even a problem, who isn't concerned that Islamofascists murdered 3000 Americans and tried to murder many more in the 1993 WTC attack, who doesn't care for his own life and his fellow citizens', and who denies the fact that terrorist plots have been thwarted here in the US thanks to the Patriot Act.

[petomai]

No no no no no...again...NONE OF THESE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF ANYTHING. The Buffalo youths ARE ALL CURRENTLY FREE. You are lying.

[petomai]

And also, I'm curious to know...you are aware that at least six of the so-called 9/11 hijackers are still alive, correct? Not saying I know what happened, but we don't even know who did 9/11. Fact fact fact fact fact. Even the director of the FBI says so.

[ATS]

Provide a link that proves that the Lakawana Arabs did NOT get terrorist training in Afghanistan from Al Qaeda. If you can't do that then you're the liar, not me.

Stop changing the subject to your looney 9/11 conspiracy theories. Admit it, you haven't one sensible argument to offer against the Patriot Act, other than the fact that you don't mind if the terrorists being stopped by it actually murder you or other Americans.

[petomai]

Nope...you're dodging my point. If you'll notice, I stated in my very first post on the matter that "The two in Lackawanna who had attended a training camp (one of whom quit in the middle, injured and unable to adapt to the lifestyle) had been monitored by the FBI for years and found to be kids with misplaced machismo and no follow-up.". So yeah, they went. They were subsequently (and legally) surveilled. They did nothing. Stop backtracking. We didn't stop anyone from doing anything, and we didn't need USA PATRIOT ACT to do it. My point was, no one has EVER been convicted of being in an al qaeda sleeper cell in the US.

2) Conspiracy theory? Wow. Well, since there is SO MUCH documentation on this, I'll just grab a few links and you can see for yourself.

a) BBC news, Sep. 23, 2001
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

b)The Guardian
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/september-eleven/hijackers-alive.htm

c)Flight 11:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers_flt_11.html

and blah blah blah...just look around and wake up.

And, my sensible argument, FOR THE THIRS time, is that USA PATRIOT ACT violates the Fourth Amendment. If you don't agree, fine. But it is a direct quotation and a valid reason. Just becuase the Democrats are spinless soft-right-wingers who are too afraid to pick up this ball and play doesn't change the truth of the matter.

blessings and bright flowers
-p

[ATS]

Petomai,

The subject matter is the Patriot Act and how you don't want terrorists stopped from slaughtering you.

You yourself admitted that the Lackawana Arabs had terrorist training in Afghanistan, which itself is a violation of federal anti-terrorism law. The only reason they "didn't do anything" with their weapons training and "machismo" is that they were caught, all thanks to the Patriot Act. The US Supreme Court upholds the provisions for terrorist surveilance in the Patriot Act. Only terrorists and their leftist sympathizers oppose it.

And why wait for a terrorist to come along and take you out of your misery? Have you even considered using razor blades or Drano? They seem to be more foolproof methods of killing yourself. Normal people are always grateful when suicidal morons eliminate themselves safely from the gene pool.

[petomai]

Besides a petulant refusal to admit that I am correct about NO ONE HAVING BEEN CONVICTED, what is your point? Your claim, I believe, was that we had stopped terrorists from acting, but seeing as none of them are locked up, one is pretty safe in assuming that we had nothing to lock them up for besides a bit of circumstantial evidence that amounted to nothing in the long run.

Since you have clearly lost this one as far as objective facts are concerned, you retreat to the "this post is about such-and-such" defense, when it was YOU YOURSELF who brought up the "sleeper cells"! Please. And then you tell me to kill myself? THIS, good sir, is why you are an idiot. Or, rather, a child who goes apoplectic when they can't have things their own way.

And the Guardian article? Well? You've got NOTHING but rhetoric.

may you live in interesting times,
-p

[petomai]

Oh and also...I am not a leftist. Not at all. If you wanted to call me anything, you could maybe get by with Libertarian, which, last I checked, was definitely on the right-hand side of stupid people's perceptions. There is not one position I have advocated that is incosistent with classical Burkean conservatism or modern Libertarian thought.
Where did you get your degree, by the way? (snicker)

[GK]

Petomai,

If the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment, and Senators had 4 years to ponder this, yet voted for it 89-11, why have you not written to your Senators about your concerns? Surely they would like to uphold the constitution if informed about a violation of it.

It seems odd that something that violates the constitution would pass with a bipartisan 89-11. The SCOTUS could overturn it too.

How certain are you of this being the case?

[petomai]

GK:

I'm not so sure that my Senators DO want to uphold the Constitution...given the fact that the spinless Congress abdicated their Constitutional power to declare war to the Excutive branch without so much as batting an eyelash. I think we've discussed this before, but I think that our Congress is rotten to the core (I mean, hell, the only one-- and I mean THE ONLY ONE-- who thinks for themself is Bernie Sanders from Vermont, and he's a goddamn socialist (in a red state!)!) and only interested in securing their next term, doing so by satiating the big-money interests that pay for their campaigns. To reference a popular story, we need to run the money-changers out of the temple.

SCOTUS, well, maybe they can do something about it, but it won't be until the partisan firestorm has died down a little, probably not before six years from now.
Anyway, I'm not frothing at the mouth about USA PATRIOT ACT...it simply concerns me when I see creeping threats to the privacy and freedoms of my fellow citizens. Sure, it's not affecting too many people just yet, but this is how dictatorships begin. Little laws here, little laws there...soon enough they will be confiscating our guns, as they may be used in furtherance of terrorist ends, or some such nonsense. Do you see what I'm saying? I just find it mind-blowing that a little bit of power has made so many conservatives abdicate the principles of fiscal responsibility, non-intervention, and individual liberty that defined a once-noble movement. I guess that is the story of history, but it is a sad one, and it it is up to vigilant Americans to protect themselves from government abuse. No one else will.

Best wishes,
-p

[petomai]

oops...i meant red county on the sanders reference, not red state...sorry!

[GK]

petomai,

OK, so small incrementalism in losing civil liberties, which are tolerated at first, is how dictatorships begin.

So tell me :

1) How come the same side of the political spectrum that is in favor of gun ownership rights also supports the Patriot Act?

2) Fear of what Islamic radicals might do prevents us from taking certain security measures, like airport screening of Islamic men.

US newspapers were afraid to publish some simple cartoons.

That people are afraid to even talk about it is a loss of civil liberties. Does that not bother you?

[petomai]

1) I think that politics is the last place to look for ideological consistency, as I've previously stated. I --and many others-- support gun ownership and oppose the USA PATRIOT ACT. I believe that this position is consistent with a small-government, individual-rights-centered mindset. Call it what you will. Moves made in DC are about money and power, not ideology.

2) I absolutely agree with you about the cartoons. We SHOULD have published them in every paper across the land. And your point about Christians is only half-right...the rabid Dominionists and Biblical literalists stateside are just as worrisome to me as the Islamists in the Mideast. While the mainstream of American Christians isn't prone to beheadings, the radical fringes are assuredly into things like stoning adulterers and other anachronisms that aim to sail us back into the pre-Enlightenment swamp of non-empirical, non-materialist thought. In fact, I think that there needs to be a far more aggressive critique of religion in general. Putting radical uncertainties of belief into political play can only have disastrous consequences, as evidenced by our current conflict and the absolutely ridiculous and time-wasting construct of the "culture war" here at home...anybody who's concerned about gay marriage in the face of imminent social and economic collapse frightens me more than the worst terrorist. They will be the death of us. Mark my words.

Cheers,
-p