Tell Congress: Stop the rush to erode our civil liberties

While I've yet to hear them killing anyone, the ELF have engaged in some very violent and destructive actions that very well could have ended in fatalities. Didn't they set fire to a large car lot in California? There are violent people on both sides of the issue. Focusing on the issues of the enviorment is more important than giving the extremists front stage. As I've said more than once, however...Americans in particular seem unable to perceive *anything* in terms other than one extreme or the other.

I feel both are both good points to one.

van der Graaf was part of Milieu Offensief (Environment Offensive). Just by it’s name alone he falls in to the Environment part. He was both. His actions were against Pig farming. Now was that because how the pigs are killed and treated? Yes but also the pollution from the rain run off in to the water ways. So it could have been one of them or both reasons. Fact we know he was involved in both Environment and Animal Rights groups. Not a great leap to say his actions were on both ideas.

Kaczynski was nuts and no one can tell my other wise. Kaczynski did state he was in CONTACT with EARTHFirst! not that he was just a fan. Now because he is crazy we can say he is just nuts. Problem is EarthFirst! didn’t condemn his actions till he was caught and testified he was in contact with them and that he got one of his targets from them. In a way they condoned the action. In the condoning of the action it soils the name of there organization and there movement.

There are members of the ACLU (who I am a fan of and a supporter of) that are radicals. They range from Religious Radicals to Racial to Environmental. Hell a Jewish lawyer for the ACLU repusented a Nazi guy’s rights to protest. The reason they are watched is because the radicals use them, it’s for the records of the groups that come to them, not them them self.

Figures...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/07/22/MNG0VDS1SH1.DTL

Some factoids from the article:

The other two provisions -- Section 215, which gives the FBI secret access to people's business, medical, library, bookstore and other shopping records, and Section 206, which authorizes so-called roving wiretaps -- would be renewed for 10 years as part of the vote.

...

The Senate bill also places further limits on secret "sneak and peak'' warrants and administrative subpoenas that can be carried out without a judge's permission.

...

Lisa Graves, the American Civil Liberties Union's senior counsel for legislative strategy, said the House bill, by making the provisions "a permanent presence in our lives," increases the risk that these investigative tools will be used improperly -- especially for criminal cases not connected to terrorism -- and reduces the ability of Congress and others to learn about abuses.
Graves said the bill weakens constitutional protections against unwarranted searches -- and limits the typical avenues to challenge those searches in court.

well said!

I guess the FBI should be watching all churches then, eh? Some church members are radicals after all.

To the best of my knowledge, no major environmental group condones violence against human beings (the opinions of some individual members vary, naturally).

Earth Liberation Front started as splinter faction of Earth First! They broke away because they felt EF! was too mainstream. They have no central organization, and the views of any given chapter are not necessarily reflective of any other chapter. Individual chapters known to engage in arson or vandalism should be treated like any other arsonists or vandals.

My personal opinion is that anything more destructive than chaining yourself to a redwood or hanging a banner from a smokestack ultimately damages the movement much more than it helps. Assault or murder is morally wrong no matter who the target is. And disassembling a bulldozer on a moonless night is a lot harder than you would think

Does the church come out agnst the action? Does the group pull them in? Are we talking a local church or a national or international one? If we are talking international ones, I could name a few that yes we should. If we are tlking national again I could name a few. If we are talking local, No I don't think so unless people in the church (ministor or something like that) is one of the people that they are suspect of. There is a Church that is a White Supremes group. From some of the action that a few members have done and the none conditions of the actions I would say ya they should be.

Lets think about something here.

Lets say the next time up the Republicans lose and the Demarcates gain the house and senate plus the presidency. Lets say 3 weeks before Bush steps down a bomb goes off. We then find out that the bomber was a known Tarist and wanted for things he has done. He had gone to the ACLU to be able to have a Raly, lets say he is a White sepremose. He then blows up down twon NY with a dirty bomb. People would be saying Bush didn’t do his job. Why didn’t we know were he was? What was going on. Well they would be right looking in to the ACLU would have given said name.

Sorry Lupo, I have to strongly disagree with you. You have a much greater chance of choking on your food or breaking your neck in your bathtub than you do of coming to any harm because of a radical or terrorist. Should the FBI stake out your bathroom and monitor your food shopping habits? Life is full of risks. You can't eliminate them. I would much rather live in a risky world where I'm free than live in a world that's not actually any less risky but the government is watching and compiling data on everything I do. Violence will touch the lives of very few. Government invasion of privacy will likely touch the lives of everyone.

Problem is we agree. I am just making a point, and the most valid of points that you are not getting. I disagree with the UNpatriot Act. How many people here who are so up about the ACLU being watch got up about the 9/11 bombing and mad and asking why it was not stoped?? Then they asked for something to protect them. They got this. Then it’s doing it’s “job” and people get mad. Why? You got what you asked for.

I have a problem with the government looking in to any ones personal life with out a court order. I have a problem with the government looking in to any group or organization with out a court order. Bank records, library records, IPAS (Illinois auto pay for our toll way). Now if a court order is done I have no problem in the looking in to any thing as long as the court order said it’s ok.

Good news and bad. Senate is putting more control on it, but by fare note even close what they should put on it.

Probably very few. Most people in this forum are smarter than the average bear. Any time I hear the government or law enforcement start talking about prevention and preemption it makes my skin crawl. I much prefer we just punish people for the crimes they actually commit, not for the ones they only think might happen in the future.

I would agree that most people in this forum are smarter then the avarage bear. I am not talking about only people here. I am talking about every in the US of voter age.

By the way my skin crawl is so bad I lost my skin when I read the Act. I lost it. Took me 3 weeks to track it down fuck crawls fast. LOL No really I agree with the skin crawling.

This just in: http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1066881&tw=wn_wire_story

The House reauthorized the act by 257-171 with several changes designed to increase judicial and political oversight of some of its most controversial provisions. In the Republican-controlled chamber, 44 Democrats supported the bill while 14 Republicans opposed it.

Republicans repeatedly argued throughout the 11-hour debate that the latest explosions in London showed how urgent and important it was to renew the law.

"Passage of the ... act is vital to maintaining the post-9/11 law enforcement and intelligence reforms that have reduced America's vulnerability to terrorist attack," Wisconsin Republican James Sensenbrenner told lawmakers.

Republicans also added a new provision to apply the federal death penalty for terrorist offenses that resulted in death and another establishing a new crime of narco-terrorism to punish people using drug profits to aid terrorism. These offenders will now face 20-year minimum prison sentences.

The original act allowed expanded surveillance of terror suspects and gave the government the ability to go to a secret court to seize the personal records of suspects from bookstores, libraries, businesses, hospitals and other organizations -- the so-called "library clause."

House Republicans agreed last week that this clause -- perhaps the most contentious -- and another allowing so-called roving wiretaps, which permits the government to eavesdrop on suspects as they switch from phone to phone, would be renewed for only 10 years instead of being made permanent.

The Senate judiciary committee voted unanimously to recommend its own version of the act on Thursday, which included only four-year renewals of these two clauses. The full Senate is expected to take its bill up in the fall.

The little clause relating to drugs assures that they can use the partiots act to investigate just about any damn thing and any person they want to.

Yup, not a happy camper am I...

^^^Oh, and there's your waggin' dawg, Lupo.^^^

So you saying Bush bombed London?

If they did it honestly wouldn't surprise me. It all seems just a little too convenient.

We are falling in to the realm of Conspiracy Theory and the Illuminati. You know I thought you all were a little smarter and sane then that. Bush is a ass hole. Bush is a power hungry person. But a person to order the killing of innocent people like 9/11 and 7/7 I don’t think so.

Not exactly, but isn't it curious how these events seem to coincide? What better justification for re-authorization than for our closest ally to come under attack?

I agree -- I don't think Bush is anything more than a figurehead in the grand scheme of PNAC.

He already ordered the killing of thousands of innocent people in Iraq. I suppose he'd really have to be a dick to kill people who matter though, right Lupo?

Paolo, most people don't give two flying f**ks about their personal liberties, as they never use them beyond the decision which lameass program to watch. When DEA comes under the direction of the Department of Homeland Security - as it's in the works - you are going to see a lot more people squawking, but by then it will be too late.

To all the "conservatives" that follow king george.. its not to late to avoid the "I told u so".... I'd say you have about 6 months to get a grip on reality. (IMO)

Paolo--my gawd what? I'm not saying privacy isn't worth anything. I believe the same thing you just said earlier--that when there is REASON to believe that looking into someone's records will prevent people from dying in a terrorist attack, it should be looked into. Nobody in law enforcement is interested in getting anything but what they need to do their jobs better, get their promotion, and in this case stop terrorists.

Where in the Patriot Act does it say that law enforcement can "pry for the hell of it just because they can"? Is there any evidence of abuses such as this happening? If there's SPECIFIC parts of the act you'd like to discuss that you feel take away our liberty/privacy/whatever, I'd be happy to discuss them here. I've said many times that lumping it all into one package is a mistake.

You could take privacy to an absurd point, where even if there is strong reason to believe that someone is enagaged in terrorist activity, it still cannot be examined until an attack has been carried out for fear of "violating a possibly innocent person's liberty and privacy". Or in the other direction, where everyone's records are all entirely open and there's no checks at all to get a look at them. Where do we draw the lines? Well I think that's a good question, but how does the Patriot Act move those lines to the extremes that it's major opponents say it does? Perhaps parts of the act are actual improvements? Some may need changes, but rather than trying to strike down the entire act because of that, why not repair it?

In the case of the FBI, only recently have they been tasked with PREVENTING crime (antiterrorism), before that they were only expected to investigate what happened afterwards. Well, if we're going to assign them with new goals as has been done, how can you justify not giving them the tools they need to carry out those goals? (And then also turn around and blame them when they miss something?) We can't have it both ways here.

Something that gets me here...the same people saying that the "War on Terror" should be fought as a "police action" (as has already been done for years without much success obviously) are also saying here that law enforcement should continue to operate under the same restrictions they've always been under. "We should bring back the restrictions on communications and intel amongst law enforcement, etc."

So if we're not supposed to try to reform the mideast, and we're not going to be willing to give law enforcement the tools they need to do their jobs, what's the solution? I have yet to hear any alternatives. Is law enforcement expected to just wave a magic wand over 300 million people and find the bad guys?

All I've done here with my main point is repeat the same things congress has said.

The Patriot Act Protects Both the Nation and Citizens' Rights
Senator Baucus (D-MT) said, "I strongly support this important counter-terrorism bill because it will give law enforcement officials the flexibility and resources to eradicate acts of terrorism. . . . There's a thin line between increasing the powers of the federal government and maintaining Americans' and Montanans' civil liberties. I believe the bill we passed today balances the needs of protecting the country from terrorism and protecting our rights as citizens of this great country." (Senator Baucus, Press Release, October 25, 2001)

The Patriot Act Applies Pre-Existing Tools to the Fight Against Terrorism
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) said, "[T]he FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists. To put it bluntly, that was crazy! What's good for the mob should be good for terrorists." (Senator Biden, Congressional Record, October 25, 2001)

The Patriot Act Helps Ensure Coordination
Senator Edwards (D-NC) said, "We simply cannot prevail in the battle against terrorism if the right hand of our government has no idea what the left hand is doing." (Senator Edwards, Press Release, October 26, 2001)

The Patriot Act In One Word: Balance
Senator Schumer (D-NY) said, "If there is one key word that underscores this bill, it is 'balance.' . . . The balance between the need to update our laws given the new challenges and the need to maintain our basic freedoms which distinguish us from our enemies is real." (Senator Schumer, Congressional Record, October 25, 2001)

"Republicans also added a new provision to apply the federal death penalty for terrorist offenses that resulted in death and another establishing a new crime of narco-terrorism to punish people using drug profits to aid terrorism. These offenders will now face 20-year minimum prison sentences."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/2232620.stm

What's the problem? It might be going to the wrong people...either way, it's still a crime anyway.