<p>I'm not trying to debate you, I'm trying to have an intellectual discussion.</p>
<p>So if that means I lost, fine. I wrongly phrased my original statement, and I no longer stand by it.</p>
<p>Re: Korematsu: Internment was an internationally accepted practice at the time, and was much less harsh than relocation or ethnic cleansing. The US may not have specifically engaged in it before, but it was considered a legitimate wartime power.</p>
<p>"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin</p>
<p>**Several sections have stirred a great deal of controversy, including: Section 213, which permits the use of "sneak and peek" delayed notification search warrants; section 215, which gives law enforcement agencies access to a wide array of personal records including library, medical and educational recor's; and section 415, which allows for the indefinite detention of non-citizens certified by the Attorney General as terrorists.<a href="highlights%20the%20main%20problems%20with%20PA">/b</a></p>
<p>The act also gives the Department of Justice the ability to monitor attorney client conversations, gives FBI agents unprecedented access to sensitive, personal records as well as any "tangible things" it feels necessary to confiscate, all the while allowing the information to be withheld from the public.</p>
<p>Under the protection of section 215, the government is able to obtain personal records or things from anyone from libraries, hospitals, Internet service providers or any business merely by asserting that the items are sought for an ongoing investigation.</p>
<p>Under the protection of the secret and mysterious Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, prosecutors are able to obtain search warrants or wiretaps with virtually no opposition. </p>
<p>Since its inception 25 years ago, FISC has never denied a government application for a wiretap or search in more than 14,000 requests. Last year, the seven judges on the court granted almost as many warrants as the 600 or so trial judges in the entire federal judiciary. The FISC hears only one side of the case-the government's. No defense attorney or member of the public has ever attended one of its sessions. </p>
<p>*Alaska is not alone in its battle against the Patriot Act. Three other states-Hawaii, Oregon, and Vermont- have passed similar resolutions. In Vermont, the resolution went unanimously through the senate and through a Republican-controlled house. Across the country more than 150 counties and cities, including Philadelphia, have also adopted resolutions denouncing the Patriot Act. *</p>
<p>I'm not trying to debate you, I'm trying to have an intellectual discussion.</p>
<p>debate is structured to be an intellectual discussion. what your moving target agenda does is that it allows you to out-define me, essentially, you can add on restrictions each time one of my argument arises that eliminates the link or the basis of my argument, thereby both debilitating my ability as a participator in the discussion, but also eliminating the intellectual qualities of debate - essentially, you so heavily define the specifics that you create a scenario, with lots of add-ons and specifications, where your answer is the only option. its like asking (just for example purposes only, not my real opinion)</p>
<p>1) can a woman get an abortion?
say I argue no. she must deal with consequences of her choices.
2) the child was a product of incest.
say i still say no. baby has right to live, and maybe won't be deformed.
3) child is product of daughter-father incest and will def. have deformities/genetic problems and will only live for 3 days maximum and will costs a million dollars to have the birth and the family is poor and the father is in prison and....</p>
<p>etc.</p>
<p>Your source conveniently says nothing of warrants in discussion of the following.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Government can monitor an individual's web surfing records, use roving wiretaps to monitor phone calls made by individuals "proximate" to the primary person being tapped, access Internet Service Provider records, and monitor the private records of people involved in legitimate protests.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nor does it cite the provision of the law pertinent to these powers. Again, a specific citation please.</p>
<p>Edit: I agree, by the way, that there is much to dislike in the Patriot Act. But I haven't yet seen a clear answer on the warrant issue.</p>
<p>Come on guys. Seriously, enough is enough. Theres absolutely no need for specific citation, endnotes, footnotes, bibliographical information, overextensive analysis over repetitive and redundant statements. </p>
<p>This needs to cease. You had your intelligent discussion, like I had last night with General Rak, but now its time to stop. You have both debated, deliberated, and proved your points. I expressed my view of the Act and ebony kindly elaborated on the reason for it. Thats all that is necessary. </p>
<p>Lets move on to other topics if you will. :)</p>
<p>the bolded paragraph above does it. you can search Section 213 (215 and 415 as well) to make sure, if you'd like.</p>
<p>also this is good but non-bolded:</p>
<p>Under the protection of section 215, the government is able to obtain personal records or things from anyone from libraries, hospitals, Internet service providers or any business merely by asserting that the items are sought for an ongoing investigation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
what your moving target agenda does is that it allows you to out-define me, essentially, you can add on restrictions each time one of my argument arises that eliminates the link or the basis of my argument, thereby both debilitating my ability as a participator in the discussion, but also eliminating the intellectual qualities of debate - essentially, you so heavily define the specifics that you create a scenario, with lots of add-ons and specifications, where your answer is the only option.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not going to continue to hold on to a position that is flawed. You showed how I was technically wrong, and I accept that. I'm not trying to redefine the parameters of the debate, I'm simply saying that I've changed my position and made it more specific. I do standby the assertion regarding "involved parties", however.</p>
<p>How did "Would you retake for a 760?" become "What do you think of the PATRIOT Act?"</p>
<p><em>sigh</em> well i am off to church now. it was an interesting discussion. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
the bolded paragraph above does it. you can search Section 213 (215 and 415 as well) to make sure, if you'd like.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How is a sneak-and-peak warrant or a FISC warrant not a warrant, though? I understand that the rules regarding the issuance of warrants have been greatly relaxed, but a warrant is still required, right?</p>
<p>Well I'm joining late, and I can't catch up, but I will throw this quote in for all those in the beginning who called criticism of our Presiden unAmerican...I remember Spartan, there were probably more:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yup. It goes against American opposition to tyranny and monarchy!</p>
<p>oh sorry I read the thing wrong. Anyways criticism is necessary for the nation to grow. Partisan policies are biased and lack insight.</p>
<p>i make a reference to the un-bolded paragraph - no warrant is required, simply an assertion (and we know that isn't good, all you have to do is say "this is needed for ongoing investigation" and don't need to go to a judge). How is a sneak-and-peak warrant or a FISC warrant not a warrant, though? - it is a warrant, but it is one that is more intrusive and 'backhanded' if you must. you don't get to know they are searching your house before they do; and they don't tell you they searched your house after. in warrants, both happen. they tell you that they searched your house doubly - why is this bad? because in those cases, you are supposed to be made aware that they are going to search your house - in all those movies you see they hold up the warrant to you as proof and tell you what they are doing. essentially, it is like them 'legally' rummaging through your stuff without your knowledge.</p>
<p>The patriot act is a clause which allows the government to forgo one's rights under the constitution of the United States to a fair trial if they are suspected of terrorism. Even though I know "patriot" is a pneumonic device, I find the very name of the act to be hypocritical. How can it be called the patriot act if it can actually remove our rights? I am currently upset with the situation in Guantanamo Bay where our government feels it is perfectly fine to lock up "terrorists" w/o a trial.</p>
<p>I actually wrote a paper in history class which traced freedom-inhibiting acts to stalininist society to an Orwellian existence in the novel 1984. Although the odds are we will never face life with thought police and cameras spying our personal activites, the fact that the government can suspend our individual rights makes me feel a little uneasy.</p>
<p>"Although the odds are we will never face life with thought police and cameras spying our personal activites, the fact that the government can suspend our individual rights makes me feel a little uneasy."</p>
<p>As we speak, companies (<em>cough cough</em> Sony <em>cough</em>) are working on interfacing the human mind and the computer...everyone, keep your fingers crossed if you don't want 1984 to come...</p>
<p>Anyhow, all this political fervor has got me wondering: Am I "apathetic" and an "SAT intellectual" just because I don't get myself involved in politics? I mean, I don't ask you to manage an institution's servers; why is asking me to learn and fight the Patriot Act a "reasonable" demand? I know, the argument is that the Patriot Act "directly affects me, so I have an obligation to be informed"; but just see how much your life is affected when your ISP goes down...</p>
<p>To each his own, right? We should all focus on what we do best, and let others do what they do best...</p>