Article

2003-09-15 Home Front

Anti-terror laws increasingly used against common criminals

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2003-09-15 11:36:02 AM|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 How many bookies, con artists, etc. hide their money overseas? .0005%?

Posted by Anonymous 2003-9-15 12:00:13 PM|| 2003-9-15 12:00:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Cyber Sarge,

it's "power to the people" not "power to the gov"

I find your support for an Act which goes against our core values as a people, well disturbing.

The article was centered primarily on the concept of the Patriot Act being used in a manor in which we were told it would NOT be used.

The Patriot Act is supposed to be a temporary measure to combat terrorism and safeguard the american people, but now it is also being used for other purposes. This is NOT a good thing!

Why? Because law enforcement officials want to get the job done and get criminals off the street (yeah I know, duh), this act makes it easier on them to do so, which makes them happy. They are going to get used to having it around, I predict they will fight to make the Patriot Act permanent, which would of course permanently shrink the civil liberty of the american people.

I donât know about anyone else here, but I'm not big on being lied to, I'm also not so big on having my civil liberties threatened

Posted by Dcreeper 2003-9-15 12:47:46 PM|| 2003-9-15 12:47:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Dcreeper, We are talking about ISOLATED cases where a prosecutor has applied this law (rightly or wrongly) to a particular case. Contrary to the Arab-American whiners group and then ACLU, there are NO documented abuses under the Patriot Act. As for the Meth cooker and the swindlers they get what they deserved. I hate it when the guilty cry foul when they are caught. WHAAAA WHAAAA!

Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2003-9-15 1:01:44 PM|| 2003-9-15 1:01:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 eh, we are talking about 2 example cases, no where in the article did it state that they are the only occurrence of it's usage.

I think ye should in account that, generally, in most cases, more happens than is reported.

Or do you really expect me to believe the additional surveillance options are not being used on non-terror suspects?

documented ?
(this bit from EFF)
FBI and CIA can now go from phone to phone, computer to computer without demonstrating that each is even being used by a suspect or target of an order......
The government need not make any showing to a court that the particular information or communication to be acquired is relevant to a criminal investigation.
(/EFF)
what documentation? they can just simply do it. no paper work

the Patriot Act loosely defines far too many things.

As for the Meth maker and the poor bastard with a pipe bomb.. Terrorism? my ass. If they committed a crime fine, charge them accordingly, but terrorism ? how far will this sort of thing go if it is not opposed or vilified?

what is your logic behind the belief that is ONLY these two isolated events?

Do you have no love of the American free spirit? Does the loss of your liberties bother you at all ?

Posted by Dcreeper 2003-9-15 1:32:02 PM|| 2003-9-15 1:32:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Dcreeper, good points. And no I do not have proof that these are the only cases. I also do not have proof of any other cases and I DO NOT/WILL not feel sorry for someone who makes crack for a living. Also I APPLAUD the resourcefulness of the prosecuter that used the ACT to get the money of the swindlers. Sorry but I have some faith in my law enforcement. I have not observed a 'loss' of my civil liberties, have you? With the exception of having to wait longer to board a plane, my life continues as normal. Is that because I am not cooking meth or running a con on old people? You can play chiken little if you want, but the sky is not falling on me.

Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2003-9-15 2:00:39 PM|| 2003-9-15 2:00:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Cyber Sarge,

You make a good point. I hear all these people whining about the Constitution being trampled and loosing all of their civil rights, yet I have yet to hear one of these people mention a specific case of having a civil liberty violated.

So Dcreeper, what right have you lost today? I for one have continued to live my life as normal. I critize the government where appropriate. I send lewd emails to friends. Drink my beer, watch football, go to work on Monday. I can even go to church if I want (which I don't). I don't have a gun, but I could get one if I so desired. What rights have I lost?

Posted by Swiggles 2003-9-15 2:25:12 PM|| 2003-9-15 2:25:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Dcreeper, if it were a story about innocents being prosecuted for their politics, then I could see your point. But it's about bookies, con artists, drug dealers, and defrauders of the elderly! Get me a list of political prisoners if you want my attention, and preferably not the list that includes convicted cop-killers.

Posted by Tom 2003-9-15 2:56:24 PM|| 2003-9-15 2:56:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Cyber Sarge, Swiggles, Tom:

Those of you who have seen my posts know that I am amongst the most conservative, Democrat hating, gun loving, LEO supporting Rantburghers around - but I don't like the patriot act. Why? Precedent, my friends, precedent. Can you imagine the Patriot Act in the hands of Janet Reno? Howabout President Hillary Clinton? I really don't want this golf club left in their bag; no thank you.

Posted by Secret Master 2003-9-15 3:13:47 PM|| [www.budgetwarrior.com] 2003-9-15 3:13:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Oddly, few of the actual examples in the article have anything to do with the Patriot Act. The meth dealer was charged under a state law, for example. Lots of prosecutions are being laid at the foot of the Act that have nothing to do with it.

NRO answered some questions here
Patriot Act site here

Posted by Chuck Simmins 2003-9-15 3:21:10 PM|| [http://blog.simmins.org] 2003-9-15 3:21:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Secret Master, I see your point but even if that come to pass I will have to put my faith in the law. Also IF Billary does get into the White House she will be under a BIG microscope, just like President Bush. If there were any funny business vis-a-vis the ACT, ~~the fat-ankle shrew~~ Hillary would be the FIRST one to start clucking (rightfully so). So far we have ACUSATION of wrong and very little proof. I stand firm and like Tom, I want to see a list of 'political' prisoners.

Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2003-9-15 3:30:19 PM|| 2003-9-15 3:30:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Sounds like when they used the RICO statutes against abortion protestors, doesn't it? Gotta agree with S-master. Jefferson would be crying, 'foul'!

If you need a law, make a law. Then only use it for the reasons for which it was written.

Posted by Scott 2003-9-15 4:29:15 PM|| 2003-9-15 4:29:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 All finer points aside, there is one interesting point being brought out here. And that is that drugs like heroin, crack, etc. really are weapons of mass destruction. Maybe it's time we point out to our bleeding hearted democratic friends that if they really care about saving lives and preventing suffering, perhaps their time would be better spent educating the populace about the dangers of glorifying drug use...rather than, oh, say, the dangers of having a gun in the house. And perhaps they can spare of few of the tears that they use to sobb themselves to sleep at night over regretful civilian casualties of wars being fought to rid the world of mass murdering despots ..to shed a few tears of compassion to the millions "civilian casualties" who are the result of their MTV-esqe glorification of drugs.

But...since all is political in their selective pity, I'm sure we can expect them just to continue to look away from the fact that drugs kill far, far, more people annually than do bombs.

Posted by Becky 2003-9-15 6:01:52 PM|| 2003-9-15 6:01:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Sorry Becky, but that argument doesn't fly. FAR MORE people are addicted in this country to a LEGAL intoxicant (alcohol) than are to the illegal variety. Further, far more of the driving deaths and "episodes of violence" are attributable to the consumption of alcohol than are to illegal drugs.

I'm all for law and order, but for the law to be taken seriously, it has to have a logical foundation. One cannot simultaneously POUND on the societal costs of "illegal drugs" while simultaneously smoking a Marlboro and sipping a cold Coors--the logical inconsistancy in such a position won't allow it to be taken seriously.

Posted by Flaming Sword 2003-9-15 6:29:46 PM|| 2003-9-15 6:29:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Finer points. Like the rules of engagement at Waco? Ruby Ridge?

Drugs as WMD? Are you including alcohol? The biggest killer of all the drugs.

Becky, I see your intentions and they are noble. But as was pointed out, unscrupulous leaders will twist the fruits of your good intentions against whatever group is not THEM. And eventually that will include YOUR group. Our constitution was framed primarily to protect us from our government. Limiting the Hillaries (and the Ashcrofts) is precicely the reason why.

You want to execute drug dealers? Fine. Pass a law. Enforce THAT law. But do not let the government assume powers that it was not specifically given. Sooner or later, we're gonna get a Hillary.

Posted by Scott 2003-9-15 6:35:55 PM|| 2003-9-15 6:35:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Well, good points both...but I really didn't want to go there. I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy of the politically selective piety...oops..I mean pity.

There are lots of things we can cry over.... but if one wants to feel superior to me by proclaiming to care more than me about human suffering caused by war or gun possession...then it is only fair that I be allowed to point out my own far greater superiority (heh, heh) for being more concerned with the far greater level of human suffering, created by drug abuse (legal or no), auto accidents, AIDS or unattended children drowing in buckets.

I know it's a double edged sword...but I think it's safe to say that heroin, meth, crack and ...yes..alcohol are WMDs. Not trying to execute anyone or make public policy...just making an observation that it's not inaccurate to acknowledge drugs as a WMD. If you take the political consequences out of the picture (if only it were possible) then I'm just making a statement of fact.

Posted by Becky 2003-9-16 2:21:12 AM|| 2003-9-16 2:21:12 AM|| Front Page Top

09:23 True German Ally
08:57 raptor
08:57 raptor
05:34 Bulldog
02:21 Becky
01:06 Mike Kozlowski
00:21 Polonius
23:26 tu3031
23:22 tu3031
23:07 Rafael
22:51 R. McLeod
22:50 Anonymous
22:33 Not Mike Moore
22:23 Steve
21:48 Aris Katsaris
21:47 Super Hose
21:43 Super Hose
21:26 LBW
21:19 Igs
21:17 Frank G
21:08 tu3031
21:02 tu3031
21:00 wm. tyroler
20:56 Old Patriot