Bush signs parts of Patriot Act II into law

MonstaThrilla

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2000
1,652
0
0
Get something to throw at your monitor...

San Antonio Current

On December 13, when U.S. forces captured Saddam Hussein, President George W. Bush not only celebrated with his national security team, but also pulled out his pen and signed into law a bill that grants the FBI sweeping new powers. A White House spokesperson explained the curious timing of the signing - on a Saturday - as "the President signs bills seven days a week." But the last time Bush signed a bill into law on a Saturday happened more than a year ago - on a spending bill that the President needed to sign, to prevent shuttng down the federal government the following Monday.

By signing the bill on the day of Hussein's capture, Bush effectively consigned a dramatic expansion of the USA Patriot Act to a mere footnote. Consequently, while most Americans watched as Hussein was probed for head lice, few were aware that the FBI had just obtained the power to probe their financial records, even if the feds don't suspect their involvement in crime or terrorism.

[...]

Supporters of expanding the Patriot Act claim that the new law is necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks on the U.S. The FBI needs these new powers to be "expeditious and efficient" in its response to these new threats. Robert Summers, professor of international law and director of the new Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University, explains, "We don't go to war with the terrorists as we went to war with the Germans or the North Vietnamese. If we apply old methods of following the money, we will not be successful. We need to meet them on an even playing field to avoid another disaster."

Opponents of the PATRIOT Act and its expansion claim that safeguards like judicial oversight and the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, are essential to prevent abuses of power. "There's a reason these protections were put into place," says Chip Berlet, senior analyst at Political Research Associates, and a historian of U.S. political repression. "It has been shown that if you give [these agencies] this power they will abuse it. For any investigative agency, once you tell them that they must make sure that they protect the country from subversives, it inevitably gets translated into a program to silence dissent."

Opponents claim the FBI already has all the tools to stop crime and terrorism. Moreover, explains Patrick Filyk, an attorney and vice president of the local chapter of the ACLU, "The only thing the act accomplishes is the removal of judicial oversight and the transfer of more power to law enforcements agents."

This broadening of the Patriot Act represents a political victory for the Bush Administration's stealth legislative strategy to increase executive power. Last February, shortly before Bush launched the war on Iraq, the Center for Public Integrity obtained a draft of a comprehensive expansion of the Patriot Act, nicknamed Patriot Act II, written by Attorney General John Ashcroft's staff. Again, the timing was suspicious; it appeared that the Bush Administration was waiting for the start of the Iraq war to introduce Patriot Act II, and then exploit the crisis to ram it through Congress with little public debate.

The leak and ensuing public backlash frustrated the Bush administration's strategy, so Ashcroft and Co. disassembled Patriot Act II, then reassembled its parts into other legislation. By attaching the redefinition of "financial institution" to an Intelligence Authorization Act, the Bush Administration and its Congressional allies avoided public hearings and floor debates for the expansion of the Patriot Act.

Even proponents of this expansion have expressed concern about these legislative tactics. "It's a problem that some of these riders that are added on may not receive the scrutiny that we would like to see," says St. Mary's Professor Robert Summers.

The Bush Administration has yet to answer pivotal questions about its latest constitutional coup: If these new executive powers are necessary to protect United States citizens, then why would the legislation not withstand the test of public debate? If the new act's provisions are in the public interest, why use stealth in ramming them through the legislative process?
Odd that it took the San Antonio Current to break this story.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
I posted on this earlier Text No one seems to care about rights of others anymore in our self absorbed society until somthing effects them then they go apesh1t. Hopefully it won't be too late.

The Fourth Amendment and You
On Monday President Bush signed legislation which expanded FBI powers in an unprecedented way. Specifically, the legislation allows John Ashcroft to issue himself a "National Security Letter" in order to conduct many searches.

Warrants and subpeonas are no longer necessary. The FBI no longer needs to prove probable cause to a judge in order to conduct many searches.

Warblogging first talked about this new legislation on November 26th. That article includes a good overview of what this bill does and the manner in which it was passed.

Let's recap quickly, though. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:



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.


This amendment to the Constitution, a central component of the Bill of Rights, makes clear our rights regarding government search. It states that the government should not be able to get a to search you without probable cause.

The FBI now has a power to search your records of interaction with business ? from your auctions on eBay to your purchases on Amazon.com to your interaction with your Internet Service Provider to your credit card receipts to your insurance records ? without ever proving probable cause to anybody. The FBI simply issues itself a warrant (in this case called a "national security letter," which is simply a warrant by another name) without any review whatsoever.

In fact, the entire process is so secret and without oversight that businesses served with national security letters may not tell anyone about the search. National security letters, you see, include automatic gag orders ? admitting your business has been served with a letter is an offense punishable by prison time.

So we have now reached a point where many ? most ? details of your life are available to the FBI for the taking. If the FBI feels it wants to know what you spend your money on, where you travel, what you like to buy or any number of other details about your life, it simply needs to demand the information. No court can say "you don't have probable cause" or ask "why do you need this information?"

The members of Congress who introduced this legislation into an intelligence spending bill (intelligence spending bills are generally the subject of very little debate, and their contents are generally secret) insisted that this new FBI power was necessary to combat terrorist money launderers.

They have to be kidding. How does the requirement for judicial review prevent the investigation of "terrorist money launderers"? How does the need to go before a judge and prove probable cause ? prove that you're not simply engaged in a witch-hunt ? prevent the investigation of terrorism? The answer is simple: it doesn't.

That requirement does, however, prevent other activities. It prevents the FBI from going on elaborate fishing investigations, seizing the private records of ordinary citizens who have little or no links to terrorism. It prevents the FBI from gathering information about political dissidents and other people who say or do things the government simply doesn't like. But no sane judge would say "no" to an FBI request for financial records about someone who appears to actually be engaged in terrorism-related activities.

This new power doesn't really help with terrorism investigations. It doesn't really help keep us safer. What it does is reopen the door just a bit wider ? the USA PATRIOT Act and various directives issued by John Ashcroft to the FBI have already opened the door quite wide ? to the kind of abuses the FBI had, until the Bush Administration, tried very hard to put behind it.

Those abuses include J. Edgar Hoover's investigations of Marilyn Monroe, they include COINTELPRO.

COINTELPRO, for those who don't know, was an FBI program designed "to neutralize political dissidents". The FBI engaged in widespread covert operations ? including many so-called "black bag jobs" ? designed to build massive files on dissenters and, when possible, publicly discredit them.

In 1976 a report was issued by Congress called the Supplementary Detailed Staff Reports on Intelligence Activies and the Rights of Americans. One of those targeted by COINTELPRO was Martin Luther King, Jr. The reasoning for this, as explained in the congressional report, was to "prevent the rise of a 'messiah' who could 'unify, and electrify, the [civil rights] movement." Another goal was to "prevent groups and leaders [of the civil rights mvoement] from gaining 'respectability' by discrediting them to the 'responsible' Negro community."

This new legislation, which we don't even have a name for, is yet another step in the slippery slope towards tyranny. Even as Saddam Hussein is captured in Iraq President Bush signs legislation that moves America closer to being a police state.

I might mention, by the way, that the apparently poorly named Department of Justice has just announced that American citizen Jose Padilla will still not be allowed to see an attorney. Padilla was arrested at Chicago O'Hare airport on suspicion of being a terrorist bent on exploding a "dirty bomb" in the United States. Attorney General Ashcroft announced his arrest triumphantly.

Only later would the DoJ admit Padilla is a "small fish", as Warblogging reported in August of last year. But this "small fish" has now spent a year and a half in solitary confinement at a US military facility in South Carolina. He has not been allowed to see an attorney. He has not been allowed to appeal for a writ of habeus corpus. He has not been allowed to speak to anyone in the outside world, and quite possibly has not been allowed to see sunlight in his year and a half in captivity.

The Department of Justice says that they need to continue to detain Padilla without access to an attorney because he "continues to provide valuable intelligence" to the government, as the AP puts it. An anonymous DoJ source told the AP that this intelligence gathering "would potentially be hampered and jeopardized by access to counsel." My question is this: Padilla has been detained for more than a year and a half now. What more intelligence could he possibly have to give after all this time, and how could that intelligence still be relevant?

Padilla has not been charged with a crime. He has not been brought before a judge. He has not been given an attorney. He has not been allowed to make a phone call ? not one. This in America. This with an American citizen.

Do not forget that we now have the USA PATRIOT Act and this new legislation. Do not forget that there are multiple American citizens currently being detained indefinitely by the military without charge, without access to attorneys, and without the benefit of habeus corpus. Do not forget that the Attorney General of the United States is cracking down on free speech. Do not forget that riot police are becoming more aggressive in putting down protests, as Salon.com reports. Do not forget that the US government tried very, very hard to build Total Information Awareness.

Remember that our fundamental freedoms are not only in jeopardy, but are now being violated. Remember that what makes this country great ? the Bill of Rights ? is now being shredded in Washington. And remember that the only way we can save our freedoms is to get President Bush out of the White House
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Presidents have been eating away at the constitution for decades and decades. What makes you think Bush is any different? I'm not saying I condone it, but there's no surprise here. Federal vs. State (and the individual) is a losing battle for states. Unfortunately, I don't see this ending anytime soon.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: Dari
Presidents have been eating away at the constitution for decades and decades. What makes you think Bush is any different? I'm not saying I condone it, but there's no surprise here. Federal vs. State (and the individual) is a losing battle for states. Unfortunately, I don't see this ending anytime soon.
Whisking away judical review and habeus corpus is a little bigger than just "eating away the consititution". It these fundamental democractic/judicial principles which I think sets us apart from totalitarian dictarships around the world were people just "disappear".
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn?t speak up,
because I wasn?t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn?t speak up,
because I wasn?t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn?t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945
Then They Came for Me

by

Stephen F. Rohde, Esq.


First they came for the Muslims, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Muslim.

Then they came to detain immigrants indefinitely solely upon the certification of the Attorney General, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't an immigrant.

Then they came to eavesdrop on suspects consulting with their attorneys, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a suspect.

Then they came to prosecute non-citizens before secret military commissions, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a non-citizen.

Then they came to enter homes and offices for unannounced "sneak and peek" searches, and I didn't speak up because I had nothing to hide.

Then they came to reinstate Cointelpro and resume the infiltration and surveillance of domestic religious and political groups, and I didn't speak up because I had stopped participating in any groups.

Then they came for anyone who objected to government policy because it aided the terrorists and gave ammunition to America's enemies, and I didn't speak up because...... I didn't speak up.

Then they came for me....... and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Stephen Rohde, a constitutional lawyer and President of the ACLU of Southern California, is indebted to the inspiration of Rev. Martin Niemoller (1937).
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Which is why this month I've purchased over 2000 rounds of 5.56mm, a new nightvision system, and another backup sidearm. I can now effectively equip a 10 man multi-role team. The fight for this country is only just beginning, and some of us are ready for more than angry discussion forum responses to constitutional travesty.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Which is why this month I've purchased over 2000 rounds of 5.56mm, a new nightvision system, and another backup sidearm. I can now effectively equip a 10 man multi-role team. The fight for this country is only just beginning, and some of us are ready for more than angry discussion forum responses to constitutional travesty.
Won't do much good against cluster munitions, a bradley or better or a bio attack.:p And a 5.56mm won't even penetrate ceramic inserts let alone any serious armour. Try 50 BMG or .300 win mag at a minimum.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Which is why this month I've purchased over 2000 rounds of 5.56mm, a new nightvision system, and another backup sidearm. I can now effectively equip a 10 man multi-role team. The fight for this country is only just beginning, and some of us are ready for more than angry discussion forum responses to constitutional travesty.
Won't do much good against cluster munitions, a bradley or better or a bio attack.:p And a 5.56mm won't even penetrate ceramic inserts let alone any serious armour. Try 50 BMG or .300 win mag at a minimum.
No, but the 5.56 will feed my CAR's and 16A2's to provide assault support. Making an effective fire team. The remington 700 makes an effective single elimination rifle, no matter what it's chambered in. .50 is too expensive to be useful to me, although if you have a Barrett you aren't using I'd be happy to take it off your hands.

Cluster munitions could not be used on American soil without polarizing the nation against the government. No mass destruction weapons could, nor could bio or chemical agents, which assures it will come to small unit engagments or at the most medium explosive warhead rockets and artillery. Those vehicles and weapons, even the armored ones, are vulnerable to thermite plasma and often bio/chemical attack, all of which are easily made at home. Delivery systems are likewise simple to construct and train in. No, the modern military is useless in a revolution...guerilla warfare, terrorist tactics against military and government targets, key assassinations, and most importantly, educating the population by exposing the wrongs of the administration...those are the weapons of revolution.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Which is why this month I've purchased over 2000 rounds of 5.56mm, a new nightvision system, and another backup sidearm. I can now effectively equip a 10 man multi-role team. The fight for this country is only just beginning, and some of us are ready for more than angry discussion forum responses to constitutional travesty.
Won't do much good against cluster munitions, a bradley or better or a bio attack.:p And a 5.56mm won't even penetrate ceramic inserts let alone any serious armour. Try 50 BMG or .300 win mag at a minimum.
No, but the 5.56 will feed my CAR's and 16A2's to provide assault support. Making an effective fire team. The remington 700 makes an effective single elimination rifle, no matter what it's chambered in. .50 is too expensive to be useful to me, although if you have a Barrett you aren't using I'd be happy to take it off your hands.

Cluster munitions could not be used on American soil without polarizing the nation against the government. No mass destruction weapons could, nor could bio or chemical agents, which assures it will come to small unit engagments or at the most medium explosive warhead rockets and artillery. Those vehicles and weapons, even the armored ones, are vulnerable to thermite plasma and often bio/chemical attack, all of which are easily made at home. Delivery systems are likewise simple to construct and train in. No, the modern military is useless in a revolution...guerilla warfare, terrorist tactics against military and government targets, key assassinations, and most importantly, educating the population by exposing the wrongs of the administration...those are the weapons of revolution.
I just think it's naive to think Randy weaver/waco incidents would'nt happen x1000 if civilians got out of line. Watch... about every 4 years they pass yet another arms control measure. I've heard talk of banning night vision (gen 2 and 3), body armour, in addition to the .50. Eventually, as our rights to own disappear they'll get more opressive. Then what? You'll either HAVE to break the law by owning of be at the mercy of government unarmed.

Hell you should be careful what you say now. I'm sure the FBI already knows you and where to go.


 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Which is why this month I've purchased over 2000 rounds of 5.56mm, a new nightvision system, and another backup sidearm. I can now effectively equip a 10 man multi-role team. The fight for this country is only just beginning, and some of us are ready for more than angry discussion forum responses to constitutional travesty.
Won't do much good against cluster munitions, a bradley or better or a bio attack.:p And a 5.56mm won't even penetrate ceramic inserts let alone any serious armour. Try 50 BMG or .300 win mag at a minimum.
No, but the 5.56 will feed my CAR's and 16A2's to provide assault support. Making an effective fire team. The remington 700 makes an effective single elimination rifle, no matter what it's chambered in. .50 is too expensive to be useful to me, although if you have a Barrett you aren't using I'd be happy to take it off your hands.

Cluster munitions could not be used on American soil without polarizing the nation against the government. No mass destruction weapons could, nor could bio or chemical agents, which assures it will come to small unit engagments or at the most medium explosive warhead rockets and artillery. Those vehicles and weapons, even the armored ones, are vulnerable to thermite plasma and often bio/chemical attack, all of which are easily made at home. Delivery systems are likewise simple to construct and train in. No, the modern military is useless in a revolution...guerilla warfare, terrorist tactics against military and government targets, key assassinations, and most importantly, educating the population by exposing the wrongs of the administration...those are the weapons of revolution.
I just think it's naive to think Randy weaver/waco incidents would'nt happen x1000 if civilians got out of line. Watch... about every 4 years they pass yet another arms control measure. I've heard talk of banning night vision (gen 2 and 3), body armour, in addition to the .50. Eventually, as our rights to own disappear they'll get more opressive. Then what? You'll either HAVE to break the law by owning of be at the mercy of government unarmed.

Hell you should be careful what you say now. I'm sure the FBI already knows you and where to go.
Being ex-military with my prior clearances, I'd count on it. And that's ok with me, it'd be a good first test. :cool:

You know, I was just re-reading your post. You can't worry about equipment banning, because the government, military and law enforcement will still have the stuff. It's no problem to jury rig an ambush or robbery to get yourself armed from their own provisions, then do it again, then again. It's better if we have our own, but in the end, it would make no difference.
 

smashp

Platinum Member
Aug 30, 2003
2,443
0
0
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Which is why this month I've purchased over 2000 rounds of 5.56mm, a new nightvision system, and another backup sidearm. I can now effectively equip a 10 man multi-role team. The fight for this country is only just beginning, and some of us are ready for more than angry discussion forum responses to constitutional travesty.
Won't do much good against cluster munitions, a bradley or better or a bio attack.:p And a 5.56mm won't even penetrate ceramic inserts let alone any serious armour. Try 50 BMG or .300 win mag at a minimum.
No, but the 5.56 will feed my CAR's and 16A2's to provide assault support. Making an effective fire team. The remington 700 makes an effective single elimination rifle, no matter what it's chambered in. .50 is too expensive to be useful to me, although if you have a Barrett you aren't using I'd be happy to take it off your hands.

Cluster munitions could not be used on American soil without polarizing the nation against the government. No mass destruction weapons could, nor could bio or chemical agents, which assures it will come to small unit engagments or at the most medium explosive warhead rockets and artillery. Those vehicles and weapons, even the armored ones, are vulnerable to thermite plasma and often bio/chemical attack, all of which are easily made at home. Delivery systems are likewise simple to construct and train in. No, the modern military is useless in a revolution...guerilla warfare, terrorist tactics against military and government targets, key assassinations, and most importantly, educating the population by exposing the wrongs of the administration...those are the weapons of revolution.
I just think it's naive to think Randy weaver/waco incidents would'nt happen x1000 if civilians got out of line. Watch... about every 4 years they pass yet another arms control measure. I've heard talk of banning night vision (gen 2 and 3), body armour, in addition to the .50. Eventually, as our rights to own disappear they'll get more opressive. Then what? You'll either HAVE to break the law by owning of be at the mercy of government unarmed.

Hell you should be careful what you say now. I'm sure the FBI already knows you and where to go.
Being ex-military with my prior clearances, I'd count on it. And that's ok with me, it'd be a good first test. :cool:

You know, I was just re-reading your post. You can't worry about equipment banning, because the government, military and law enforcement will still have the stuff. It's no problem to jury rig an ambush or robbery to get yourself armed from their own provisions, then do it again, then again. It's better if we have our own, but in the end, it would make no difference.
Thats A very good point.


but It wont ever come to that. The Corporations Wont allow it. They Control Us, And need the Government more than the people do to Exist.

They will keep the public Stupid, Use the greed of humanity , and Use food and Shelter as weapons.


Anyway, if their ever was a real revolt, They would release some Disease into the populace that only the Government has a cure for.
 

Bitdog

Member
Dec 3, 2003
143
0
0
I once read about an experiment done in colege.
Concerning how people treat other when those in power say it's ok to harm your neighbor.
The volunteers for the test thought they were the testors but they were the ones being tested.
So they took their chair by the electricution machine and the victom/person to test was on the other side of the glass.
Questions were asked the subject, and if they got the answer wrong the controler person was told to push a button and give him a jolt of electricity in hopes teaching him to learn through incentive.
The button were marked in volts, 120, 180, 220, 280, up to 440 (or something like that)
any way, 440 volt kills, and these people were zapping the hell out of their fellow coledge students for wrong answers, because they were told it was ok and there was no punishment to them for doing so.
The people conducting the tests were the ones in the electric chair pretending to get zapped with electricity, and the
buttons being pushed to zap them were phoney. Zap sound played on tapes, the person pretended to be shocked, etc.
The end result of the tests was that: When officials alllow a person to harm people, manyu people will do so.
It really does take that special person to stand up against a corrupt cop, or wrongfull actions by the government.
Real freedom fighters don't blindly kill people in a foriegn country for our corrupted government,
they expose a corrupt cop or wrongfull government actions right here at home.
Librarians accross the country have decided not to report people for checking out certian books.
Many of the small towns in our state have voted not to support the new unconstutional federal laws.

One question, how does Bush think that a complete errosion of individual rights is good for the country,
or any one in the country ?

If Bush get's elected again, we're in for the worst case senerio.
Posts here about get your gun polished, are true indicators of what Bushes "you're with us or against us"
policy will actually come down to. We are going to have to shoot the corrupt cop that shows up at your door to enforce Bushes corruptiion. One certianly can't get justice from the courts these days, so one would have to take the law into their own hands.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Bitdog,
read about that to, very shocking
they also made a movie about something like that called Das Experiment
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Where are all the YABAs to explain why it's OK for the neo-facists to sneak into law something opposed by both parties and the public? Does this give you any insight at all into why we do not trust GWBush and his minions? Ignoring the (de)merits of the legislation, how can one justify cynically sneaking this into law this way in what is supposed to be an open, participative democracy?

It is simply un-American.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Where are all the YABAs to explain why it's OK for the neo-facists to sneak into law something opposed by both parties and the public? Does this give you any insight at all into why we do not trust GWBush and his minions? Ignoring the (de)merits of the legislation, how can one justify cynically sneaking this into law this way in what is supposed to be an open, participative democracy?

It is simply un-American.
I notice a very noticeable retreat on their parts lately and their numbers getting smaller. It's like witnessing deserters or Mutiny on the Bounty. All of the credit goes to those that have awoken and no longer "Brainwashed".



 

dirtboy

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,745
1
81
Originally posted by: dmcowen674


I notice a very noticeable retreat on their parts lately and their numbers getting smaller. It's like witnessing deserters or Mutiny on the Bounty. All of the credit goes to those that have awoken and no longer "Brainwashed".
No. We're bored. What's the point of having a discussion with a group of people who won't open their minds beyond their extremist views? I have attempted to have many discussions about facts and news and you ignore them and refuse to discuss them.

You can call it a victory all you want, but the truth is you represent a very small minority that nobody is listening to. :shrugs;
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: dmcowen674


I notice a very noticeable retreat on their parts lately and their numbers getting smaller. It's like witnessing deserters or Mutiny on the Bounty. All of the credit goes to those that have awoken and no longer "Brainwashed".
No. We're bored. What's the point of having a discussion with a group of people who won't open their minds beyond their extremist views? I have attempted to have many discussions about facts and news and you ignore them and refuse to discuss them.

You can call it a victory all you want, but the truth is you represent a very small minority that nobody is listening to. :shrugs;
Cool, here's your chance. Let's hear your facts on this. Please explain why it's OK to sneak this into law. Explain why it's OK to dismiss the opposition of both parties and the public.
 

Bitdog

Member
Dec 3, 2003
143
0
0
BushCo minions might not be shrinking as much as hiding. (for lack of better words.)
A lawyer knows to quit argueing when he's won his point.
The Bushies are really getting their way these days, so there is no point to argue.
Only those harmed by the Bushies have a ligitimate complaint.
So they (we) will be heard from, untill Bushies can take away our freedom of speach.
(Federal conspiracy laws are quite scarry if you read them.)
Also, birds of a feather flock together. So I expect that the Bushies are grouping in another area some where.
Seek and destroy with truth, would be a reasonable plan.
www.google.com search might reveil their location.

Also, this freedom act II is obviously wrong
& Bushies would have to make a lot of excuses to ones self to justify it.
I believe they will, but it may take them some time to form a justification rebuttle.
Then we'll here from them.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: dmcowen674


I notice a very noticeable retreat on their parts lately and their numbers getting smaller. It's like witnessing deserters or Mutiny on the Bounty. All of the credit goes to those that have awoken and no longer "Brainwashed".
No. We're bored. What's the point of having a discussion with a group of people who won't open their minds beyond their extremist views? I have attempted to have many discussions about facts and news and you ignore them and refuse to discuss them.

You can call it a victory all you want, but the truth is you represent a very small minority that nobody is listening to. :shrugs;
Cool, here's your chance. Let's hear your facts on this. Please explain why it's OK to sneak this into law. Explain why it's OK to dismiss the opposition of both parties and the public.
First off - was it voted on and passed by Congress like laws need to be?

CkG
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Which is why this month I've purchased over 2000 rounds of 5.56mm, a new nightvision system, and another backup sidearm. I can now effectively equip a 10 man multi-role team. The fight for this country is only just beginning, and some of us are ready for more than angry discussion forum responses to constitutional travesty.
Heh heh and yet PrinceofWands wonders why the local law enforcement likes to keep an eye on him.

Where you gonna get another 9 whack jobs to join your team? Let me guess...you are from Michigan :)
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Cool, here's your chance. Let's hear your facts on this. Please explain why it's OK to sneak this into law. Explain why it's OK to dismiss the opposition of both parties and the public.
First off - was it voted on and passed by Congress like laws need to be?

CkG
You can find that out by reading the article, but I'll help you out. It was added in conference in spite of objections from both sides. But that really isn't the question, is it?

 

dirtboy

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,745
1
81
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: dmcowen674


I notice a very noticeable retreat on their parts lately and their numbers getting smaller. It's like witnessing deserters or Mutiny on the Bounty. All of the credit goes to those that have awoken and no longer "Brainwashed".
No. We're bored. What's the point of having a discussion with a group of people who won't open their minds beyond their extremist views? I have attempted to have many discussions about facts and news and you ignore them and refuse to discuss them.

You can call it a victory all you want, but the truth is you represent a very small minority that nobody is listening to. :shrugs;
Cool, here's your chance. Let's hear your facts on this. Please explain why it's OK to sneak this into law. Explain why it's OK to dismiss the opposition of both parties and the public.
erm...how did this sneak into law?

Do you have any realization that laws are created all the time without you knowing? :confused:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY