Speakeasy forum

General discussion

DeLay et al continue assault on US civil rights

by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / July 9, 2004 12:24 AM PDT
GOP lobbying defeats bid to curb Patriot Act.
(Chronicle login: semods4@yahoo.com; pw = speakeasy)
The specific bill in question would have prevented the FBI from obtaining information from public libraries about the reading habits of "persons of interest." The American police state draws ever nearer Sad

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: DeLay et al continue assault on US civil rights
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: DeLay et al continue assault on US civil rights
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Don't worry, Dave
by Josh K / July 9, 2004 12:26 AM PDT

Only six months and eleven days until things start to change for the better, not just for the US but for the world.

Collapse -
Re: Don't worry, Dave
by SE Moderators / July 9, 2004 3:37 AM PDT
In reply to: Don't worry, Dave

Hi, Josh.

>>Only six months and 11 days<<
I wish I were as confident of that as you apparently are... I see this election as our equivalent of the 1932 election in Germany -- the last chance to preserve individual freedoms and democracy.

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Of course, Dave
by J. Vega / July 9, 2004 4:31 AM PDT
In reply to: Re: Don't worry, Dave

Of course, Dave, that election was won by von Hindenburg.
BTW, on January 30, 1933, President Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler chancellor of Germany. Note: appointed.
Hummm... you might say that Clinton appointed Hillary to try to revamp health care. If Kerry gets in, I wonder if he will do the same with his wife.

Collapse -
Re: Of course, Dave
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / July 9, 2004 6:11 AM PDT
In reply to: Of course, Dave

Hi, J.

They had a parliamentary system, where the President was a figurehead and the Chancellor the equivalent of the Prime Minister in most such systems. Hitler's party got the most votes, so the unwritten law was that he was invited to form the government. So "appointed" isn;t quite right, either.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Basic figures, Dave
by J. Vega / July 9, 2004 7:50 AM PDT
In reply to: Re: Of course, Dave

The basic figures, Dave. In July 1932 the National Socialists (Nazi's) had 230 out of 608 seats in the Reichstag. In November 1932 they had 196 out of 584. BTW, Kurt von Schleicher was chancellor 1932-1933.

Collapse -
Re: Basic figures, Dave: Add to that, J., that...
by Paul C / July 11, 2004 7:55 AM PDT
In reply to: Basic figures, Dave

1. Paul von Hindenburg was literally om his deathbed when he appointed Hitler as Chancellor, but not until he'd received assurances that others would rein Hitler in were he to get overly ambitious. What they didn't know was that Hitler was a confirmed revolutionary who'd stop at nothing to achieve untrammeled power. The business executive who was so typical of the German intellegentsia who opined after Hitler's appointment, "Now, we own him" was tragically wrong.

2. von Schleicher and his wife were both murdered by Hitler's minions on 30 June 1934, the "Night of the Long Knives", when Hitler took his first step toward total rule.

Shortly thereafter, Field Marshal Ludwig Beck was forced out as chief of the Wehrmacht in another move. After Hindenberg died, Hitler broke the promise he'd made Hindenberg never to remilitarize Germany, and made the armed forces swear an oath of total obedience not to the German state but directly to him.

Any comparison between the U.S. in 2004 and the Germany of 1934 ruled by a fanatical, committed revolutionary is simply absurd.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Absurd but if it scores points ... :( :(
by Evie / July 11, 2004 10:00 AM PDT
Collapse -
The basic tactic, Evie...
by J. Vega / July 11, 2004 11:26 PM PDT

Evie, the basic tactic is an attempt to link Bush with the "H. name". Dave knows full well exactly what he is doing. Never mind Paul's brief explanation, remember that long post of historical info that I made a while back when he did the same before? I feel sure that we will see the name come up again. The basic hope of something based on bogus history, be it anything from a conspiracy book to a Hollywood movie offered as "proof", is that the reader will not "check out" the other historical accounts - best yet for the campaigner if they check out nothing and take the political rave as "gospel".

Collapse -
Ah yes, J ...
by Evie / July 11, 2004 11:37 PM PDT

... but I think that tactic had to have originally come from Newt's Manual Wink

To think he shamelessly claimed outrage when the Bush campaign sought to draw attention to MoveOn.org's disgusting use of same.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
the last chance to preserve individual freedoms and democrac
by Edward ODaniel / July 9, 2004 5:59 AM PDT
In reply to: Re: Don't worry, Dave

EXACTLY why Kerry/Edwards should NOT be voted for.

A vote for them is a vote for socialism--just look at their voting records.

I do understand your angst regarding holding the vote open--it galls me to see Republicans resorting to the tried and tested tactics of the Democrits.

Collapse -
Re: the last chance to preserve individual freedoms and demo

Hi, Ed.

Both parties have done that at times. The most notable was the 1940 Selective Service Act, where Speaker Sam gavelled the voting closed as soon as it went ahead by a vote. But the most recent example was also by the Republicnas, on the Medicare "reform." As for the main point, Bushcroft are already chipping away at our liberties despite his selective status -- if he actually got elected, they'd feel they had a mandate for Patriot Act 2, and worse. "Fighting for liberty" by destroying the liberty you're ostensibly trying to protect would be a phyrric victory at best, yet from the use of torture to the Patriot Act, that's the Bushcroft approach and agenda.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Of course they have...

and i am glad you acknowledge it as the hypocritical Democrits in Congress are doing their best to amke it appear to be unusual.

The ONLY REASON the "most recent example was also by the Republicnas{SIC}" is because they are in the majority. Had the Democrats been in the majority the most recent example would have been by them and at their hand.

Personally I would like to see ALL votes end at exactly the time they are supposed to AND a rule EXCLUDING all riders so each gets voted up on down on its own merits--would cut a lot of pork spending and social programs that couldn't muster any support on their own.

As for the "main point", Bush is not "chipping away" at anything. The Patriot Act actually only codified things that were already going on in the law enforcement community and was really bipartisan when it came into being.

There was NOTHING that prevented the FBI or any other law enforcement agency from obtaining the same info from the same libraries prior to the Patriot Act and many were already doing just that. Matter of fact there was nothing that prevented you or me from doing the same regardless of not being a part of law enforcement. Bounty hunters and PIs have done such for many long years.

This whining about giving up liberties is simply a tactic to keep your bowels in an uproar. Can you REALLY name one that you have had taken away from you? I can name a couple that you have done your level best to have removed from many of us who own firearms.

Collapse -
Re: Of course they have...
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / July 9, 2004 7:40 AM PDT
In reply to: Of course they have...

Hi, Ed.

The Patriot Act was passed partially because the DOJ assured Congress the powers would only be used in regards to terrorism. That's far from the case -- they're being used against regular criminals, and the fear is that the library provisions will be used against political dissenters. Just about everything I've said about this Administration so far (e.g. that tax cuts would create a major deficit, that Iraq would trap much of our Army in a quagmire) has been proven true. The handwriting for a draft is on the wall if Bush gets re-elected (hopefully that'll bring out lots of young voters for Kerry!) and this last prediction will unfortunately prove true as well, if Bushcraft get four more years. I pray to God they don't!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Any draft will be the result of...
by Edward ODaniel / July 9, 2004 8:05 AM PDT

the Democratic Sponsors you have been linked to several times before--not a Republican on the list.

This is an area where I do happen to agree with those Democrats though--ALL citizens should be subject to the draft for military service and "concientious objectors" should be subject to community service for the same reason. Even women now since they have demanded more than equal rights.

Regarding the Patriot Act however you are a bit confused as it has already been stated that all it did was codify practices that had already been going on in law enforcement as it made it easier to investigate terrorist suspects and those who aid and support them.

Collapse -
Don't remember any law that required
by Diana Forum moderator / July 9, 2004 12:40 PM PDT
Collapse -
Re: Of course they have...
by C1ay / July 10, 2004 3:44 AM PDT
Collapse -
Re: Of course they have...
by Dan McC / July 10, 2004 1:18 PM PDT

Better check your legislative procedure, Clay. Kerry's signature would be the last of many things that would be needed.

Dan


.

Collapse -
Oh my! I guess the sky is falling again,
by Kiddpeat / July 9, 2004 3:34 PM PDT
In reply to: Re: Don't worry, Dave

but somehow we'll soldier on.

Collapse -
Let me think back a bit, Dave...
by J. Vega / July 9, 2004 3:21 AM PDT

Dave, let me think back a bit, I remember quite a pile of news stories from my working days.
Let's take the "product tampering" scare when somebody appeared to be poisoning Tylenol and putting them back on the store shelves. Was that the one where they went to the library, looked out the books she checked out and found her fingerprints on book pages about poisons? Or was that the one where they did the same thing when a woman used toxic plants to "spike" the pills (for her husband), or was that the one where they etc., etc...?
See where I'm going? Investigators have done this before and nobody griped. But now we see the gripes because some people are searching for "political weapons". BTW, you should have been in D.C. when they went to see who was renting what "XXX" rated films at the rental stores on Richmond Highway during the Clinton years. You would have loved it, names of Congressional members, as well as other public people came up. Yes indeedy, a law was passed in a flash.

Collapse -
Re: DeLay et al continue assault on US civil rights
by William Finder / July 9, 2004 3:36 AM PDT

"And the pathetic American lemming continues it's blind, headlong, dash to the sea."

*****************************************************

"First they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did nothing.

Then they came for the Atheist, but I was not an Atheist so I did nothing.

Then they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did nothing.

Then they came for the Socialists, but I was not a Socialist, so I did nothing.

Then they came for the Academics, but I was not an Academic, so I did nothing.

Then they came for the Dissidents, but I was not a Dissident so I did nothing.

Then they came for Me, and there was no one left to protect Me." (paraphrased, original author unknown).

Collapse -
Re: DeLay et al continue assault on US civil rights
by C1ay / July 10, 2004 3:48 AM PDT
The specific bill in question would have prevented the FBI from obtaining information from public libraries about the reading habits of "persons of interest."

So if Muhammed Ali Baba is a person of interest reading up on car bombs at the library you are advocating his right to privacy in doing that? Do you send donations to Hizbollah as well?


Collapse -
Re: DeLay et al continue assault on US civil rights
by Evie / July 10, 2004 5:09 AM PDT

From the article:

"People are waking up to the fact that the government can walk into their libraries, without probable cause, without any particular information that someone was associated with terrorism, and monitor their reading habits," said Rep. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who sponsored the amendment.

I wonder how true Rep. Sanders' statements are. I find most of the rhetoric against the Patriot Act to be exaggerations of the truth at a minimum. I looked for some info on the net, and found this, this,and this. It seems that even the Patriot Act doesn't allow investigators to just walk in off the street on a whim and access records on just anyone. They still have to obtain a warrant. Admittedly the FISA courts are more liberal, but there is judicial review. I don't think investigators are interested in wasting their time looking through library records of those they don't honestly suspect of terrorist involvement just to get their jollies.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Also, Evie,...
by Paul C / July 11, 2004 8:05 AM PDT

...I recall that a few months ago, California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein decided to find out how many times the library provision of the PATRIOT Act had been used. The answer came back: zero. It seems that the Department of Justice hasn't yet found even one instance in which it's felt that even seeking a FISA warrant was justified (which is not to say that we shouldn't keep a close eye on the actions of ALL officeholders)...

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

CNET FORUMS TOP DISCUSSION

Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?