The Patriot Act

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul295.html

Unjustified, unconstitutional invasion of privacy and expansion of government power? Or necessary tool to fight terrorism in modern America...?

What does 4chan think?

>>1 Like the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, I can accept them on principle, but I can not help but shudder at the executions and the interests lying behind them. It's like capitalism and Israel - it is philosophically and morally acceptable for anyone with a brain, but that doesn't mean you have to accept the entire deal, especially if you can offer some viable alternatives or co-op. The problem is that the anti-globalists/anti-israelis just want to put their foot down, not slow the pace and give some constructive criticism. It's like "ZOMG 667 muslims for two soldiers that is so evil". "Well, Israel is secular, free, equal and only acts barbarically due to barbaric threats. Their enemies are the utter opposite, so why don't you offer a solution instead?"
    This is why I approve of Denmark giving that torture-accused diplomat from Israel the finger, without lowering to France's position.

>>2
What does this have to do with the Patriot Act and Domestic Spying?

>>1
I think we should stop compromising and vote libertarian. 

I'm pretty sure there is pretty much universal disagreement with the Patriot Act on 4chan...

>>3 I strayed. What I wanted to say was that the Patriot Act, War on Terruhr, Israel and Capitalism share the same characteristics - the right brand all doubters -even the factual and modest ones- as treacherous and try to get bonus points by lauding as much as possible, while the left pose as resistant and truthful while all they do is complain without offering any constructive criticizm.

>>6
Forget the god damn right and left wings.  What do you think about the IDEA?

Forget partisan politics.  What do you think about the IDEA?

Again, too much invasion of individual liberty and expansion of government power, or necessary counter-terrorist tool?

>>7 I think it is a fascist solution looking for a large-enough problem to justify it. I also think it discredits the anti-statist position of the right and once again shows how sad it is that the leftist didn't have the patriotism to NOT dance to the extremist tune the general public was playing.
"(He might have ignored all the warnings and dealt with the Saudis for years and years...) BUT NOW HE'S DOING, EH, SOMETHING!!! LET'S GIVE HIM 90% APPROVAL RATINGS AND ACCEPT EVERYTHING HE THROWS AT US AND THE WORLD! SCREW THE ENVIRONMENT, SCREW THE GAYS AND IGNORE IRAN - OUR LEADER IS ACTING RANDOMLY AND ALL DISSENT MUST BE DAMNED!!!"

I can't believe this is even up for debate.  It's such a blatant violation of the constitution. 

>>9
It's "up for debate" to insure we don't have another fucking 9/11. 

Unless you are a criminal or a terrorist, you don't have to worry anyway.

>>10 "Unless you are a criminal or a terrorist, you don't have to worry anyway." The 'good guys' can use that little loophole in order to justify anything. The thing is that while I find no moral apprehension over a decrease in liberty  for a long-term protection of a system that extends a high degree of liberty, I have no trust in any of the authors of the Patriot Act, or the scope and aim of it.
I don't trust evangelicals any further than I can kick them. Which, I should add, I can not do very far despite my high motivation to inflict damage upon them.

Blatant violation of the constitution and bill of rights. 

>>10
Most of the security necessary in the U.S. to prevent terrorism is quite simple... arm the pilots of airplanes so they can no longer be controlled by a few nuts with boxcutters, and close the border.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/24/nsa.strategy/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/17/aclu.nsa/

http://www.aclu.org/

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

Benjamin Franklin

>>14 I don't believe that. Then again, Franklin probably realized that any ruler can say "This is hard to do, but it is necessary and good for you in the long run" as many times as he want.

>>15
I believe it.  Note that he said "essential" liberty.  Surely, there is a lot of debate of what could be seen as "essential." I view the 2nd amendment as one of the most essential freedoms, as it guarantees the security of the others, as well as your well being. 

Is USA a democraty?

>>17
NO IT'S AN EVIL DESPOTISM NO BETTER THAN SOVIET RUSSIA!

"90% of all models on Met-Art are from the Russian Federation."