[stockfire]

Originally Posted by maxiep

We're at war. Check how civil liberties were curtailed during WWI and WWII and the Patriot Act is weak sauce in comparison.

Think more globally than President Bush; to paraphrase James Carville, it's the system, stupid. The closer Sen. Obama comes to the presidency, the more he's going to sound like everyone else. Book it.

I hope we've progressed since then. But in the WWs, we did awful things to individual rights because we were at war with many global powers and we were worried (justly or unjustly) about what would happen.

This time, the war is with Iraq, a country we invaded. And we are curtailing the liberties based on the actions of Saudis via Afghanistan. The war isn't linked to the limiting of liberties at least not in any concrete way, so I just can't take that as good enough reason.

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by stockfire

I hope we've progressed since then. But in the WWs, we did awful things to individual rights because we were at war with many global powers and we were worried (justly or unjustly) about what would happen.

This time, the war is with Iraq, a country we invaded. And we are curtailing the liberties based on the actions of Saudis via Afghanistan. The war isn't linked to the limiting of liberties at least not in any concrete way, so I just can't take that as good enough reason.

Most people don't share my view that we're in a global war, so they don't perceive the same level of threat I do. It's a perfectly reasonable point of view. One thing is certain, the war to which I'm referring has little to do with Iraq or Afghanistan; those are just where the current front lines are.

As for the Patriot Act, I'd like to see data on those people whose civil liberties were violated before I decry it as un-American or an unreasonable intrusion into our lives given the threat we're facing.

[Hector]

This thread is a return to 2003. Same old warmonger BS. Talkhard and Maxiep always agree, and Stockfire is like McCain is to Bush. He agrees generally, but is independent enough to disagree over fine points.

As for that last paragraph, you'll never see data on the Patriot Act violating liberties because the Patriot Act makes talking about itself illegal. That's what this thread is about--remember? 3 times over the years, I've seen an article about a librarian here or there standing up to the FBI asking for records of who borrowed certain books. Soon the article disappeared from the internet.

Thanks, Grouch, for the word on Riad Hammad. I googled it and found a tiny bit of information. Even the alternative media has ignored it.

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by Hector

This thread is a return to 2003. Same old warmonger BS. Talkhard and Maxiep always agree, and Stockfire is like McCain is to Bush. He agrees generally, but is independent enough to disagree over fine points.

As for that last paragraph, you'll never see data on the Patriot Act violating liberties because the Patriot Act makes talking about itself illegal. That's what this thread is about--remember? 3 times over the years, I've seen an article about a librarian here or there standing up to the FBI asking for records of who borrowed certain books. Soon the article disappeared from the internet.

Thanks, Grouch, for the word on Riad Hammad. I googled it and found a tiny bit of information. Even the alternative media has ignored it.

First, I didn't post in the off topic board in 2003.

Second, I always agree with Talkhard? I'd check that 57 states thread. In fact, I would make a bet that I disagree with TH on many issues. But it's nice to know that in the view of yet someone else on this board, I'm a non-thinking automaton simply because I hold a minority opinion.

Third, I have to take issue with your reasoning regarding the Patriot Act. By your account, the Patriot Act is repressing rights across the country. Your proof that the Patriot Act is repressing rights is that we don't see any evidence about the repressing of rights, because we're not the first rule of the Patriot Act is that we don't talk about the Patriot Act? So in your mind, the absense of evidence is evidence itself. Brilliant. I'll refer you to Occam's Razor.

I'll just say this: If we hear about local librarians are standing up against the Patriot Act, does it stand to reason that journalists--who have not only 1st Amendment protection but who are inherently protected by their public profile--are cowed? Most investigative journalists have one goal: to become the 21st version of Woodward & Bernstein. IF there would have been gross abuses of civil liberties, you think the ACLU and the press would just stand idly by and let the friendly neighborhood librarian do all the work? That's a brave position you're promoting.

[Hector]

What part of "illegal" don't you understand? Yes, I expect reporters and the ACLU to stand by idly--because it's illegal to speak up. The fact that it's illegal to tell anyone you've been investigated for Patriot Act purposes is well known. It was in the media a little when the Act passed.

As for you always agreeing with Talkhard--aw shucks, I was exaggerating. You know it, everyone knows it. It's just in THIS thread that you're his personal automaton. But there's nothing WRONG with it. It's none of my business. I don't ask questions. You only go around once, so ya gotta have gusto. I understand completely. Keep on keepin' on. Whatever you choose, I support you 100%.