Why do we still have the PATRIOT Act?

[leftofthedial]

And the Department of Fatherland Security, especially their Gestapo harassment lines at airports?

Why are the bushgang criminals still at large?

We (nominally) have a Democratically controlled Legislature and Executive Branch, but they have done nothing to overturn the fascist destruction of our civil liberties.

WTF?

:shrug:

[Captain Hilts]

1. Because the president voted 'for' it while in the senate? nt

[leftofthedial]

2. Oh. Gee.

That's alarming.

[iamthebandfanman]

45. also supported giving telecoms immunity n/t

[Thrill]

3. This is a Congress. That is already claiming Obama is trying to do too much

You expect them to get to this?

[leftofthedial]

5. I guess not.

[iamthebandfanman]

44. after 2 years of doing nothing

it probably does seem like a lot.

[onenote]

4. because virtually no one ran for office promising to repeal it?

[leftofthedial]

7. Oh well.

I guess liberty is just an old-fashioned notion.

[onenote]

9. not defending the outcome, just explaining it.

You asked why. I offered an explanation. It wasn't an issue in the campaign.

And as far as having to go through security at an airport -- I don't like it, but its not as if there wasn't security at airports before the patriot act. Sure, it was mostly handled by the airlines/airports themselves, but there was, at least in theory, government oversight.


PS - equating the pain in the ass inconvenience posed by airport security to the actions of the Gestapo is actually pretty silly.

[leftofthedial]

14. Our process at airports is virtually identical to the Gestapo process

at train stations in the Fatherland in the 30's and early 40's.

Except the Gestapo didn't have metal detectors and X-Ray machines and rules about shampoo bottles and nail clippers and such. They also didn't make travelers take their shoes off or partially disrobe. So I guess you're right. Comparing current airport security to the Gestapo is silly.

[AZ Criminal JD]

29. Really? Were you around at the "Fatherland's" train stations in the 30s and 40s?

[leftofthedial]

30. I read. I watch film from the era. I lived in Germany during the 1960's while memories were fresh.

The parents of many of my friends lived in Germany through the 30's and 40's.

To board trains, passengers stood in lines, were questioned and had to show papers.

We have to do all those things at airports, PLUS, we have our belongings searched (manually and via X-ray, sometimes chemically); we are required to surrender all personal property; we have personal property confiscated if it contains more than 4 oz. of liquid or meets other, ever-changing arbitrary TSA guidelines; we are required to pass through metal detectors; we have to remove jackets, coats and shoes; many of us are wanded; we are subject to more invasive search and interrogation at the discretion of TSA personnel...

Do you know that Julius Caesar lived? Were you in ancient Rome?

[AZ Criminal JD]

32. No I wasn't in Rome

And I don't make broad claims that we are or are not like the Roman empire. If you think the U.S. is like Nazi Germany then either you are a faulty reader or you like to throw in drama in your discussions. Probably both.

[leftofthedial]

33. calm down slick.

I said the procedures at airports were like Gestapo procedures.

Try this website to aid your reading comprehension: no need to thank me now

[AZ Criminal JD]

34. I am very calm

I did read what you said and that is why I made my comments.

[leftofthedial]

35. You read what I wrote, but you clearly did not comprehend it.

I never wrote, "...you think the U.S. is like Nazi Germany...," as you stated I did.

I said, "Our process at airports is virtually identical to the Gestapo process at train stations in the Fatherland in the 30's and early 40's."

Here are two basic reading comprehension tips:

1. Note that the subject in my original statement is "process," particularly the "process at airports." The subject of your attempted paraphrase is "the U.S." Do you see how those two are different?

2. Also note that the object in my original statement is "Gestapo process at train stations." Do you see how this is different from your paraphrased object, "Nazi Germany"?

I wrote only about one very specific part of life in the United States. The security "process in airports" affects fewer than a third of us, and it affects us only while we are in an airport. You tried to imply that I wrote about *everything* related to the United States. Similarly, I addressed only one small, albeit powerful, group in Nazi Germany and wrote only about their activities in one specific location. You somehow interpreted this as all of Nazi Germany.

Because I know you are an honorable person and would not intentionally lie, I assume you mischaracterized my words because you are unable to comprehend what you read. Don't worry or feel bad about yourself. You are not alone. Many Americans suffer in varying degrees from illiteracy. The website I linked to earlier has many great tips on improving reading comprehension. Good luck!

[LanternWaste]

38. Ever flown into or out of an Israeli airport?

Ever flown into or out of an Israeli airport?

[leftofthedial]

39. The existence of a harsher regime

does not justify the security measures in US airports.

[LanternWaste]

41. I neither confirmed nor denied that is was a justification.

I neither confirmed nor denied that is was a justification. Simply wondering if you'd ever flow into or out of one.



Ever get into the front seat of car in America? It's done the precise same way people in Nazi Germany got into the front seat of their cars... hmmmmm.

[leftofthedial]

42. Never been to Israel, so no.

If your point was that the majority of ordinary day-to-day life under Nazi rule was just that--ordinary day-to-day life--your final point would be germane (though probably without the "hmmmmm").

Technically, I suppose, they weren't precisely the same, as cars in the 30's and 40's did not have seatbelts, warning lights, beeping warnings, headrests, etc. But I take your point.

On the point of authoritarian government intervention into the private sector, the airport security comparison is apt.

[LanternWaste]

47. So you may believe.

I'm under the impression there is more governmental intrusion on our highways than in the airports-- if we look at the total sum of regulation, laws, rules, paperwork, licenses, license renewals, registrations, required insurance, etc...

(with or without the "hmmmmm")

[dionysus]

36. and the hyperventilating hyperbole of the day awards goes to...

[leftofthedial]

43. and the non sequitur alliteration award of the day goes to...

[redqueen]

6. Oh FCOL.

[leftofthedial]

8. AITS?

YMMV.

[redqueen]

10. OISSAR.

PNTSKOSYTII,T.

[leftofthedial]

12. EIEIO

[Jennicut]

11. Good question. I bet it will be dealt with down the road.

Eric Holder is ever so slowly making remarks regarding torture, releasing a few memos. I think eventually it will be reviewed.

[leftofthedial]

13. That would be swell.

I hope you're right.

[Jennicut]

17. Obama is like a slow moving pragmatist. Very careful and calculating.

No so Obambi like at all.

[leftofthedial]

18. I calculate that he has no intent whatsoever to address any issue in this thread.

[Jennicut]

19. LOL! Maybe/ maybe not. Too soon to tell imo.

[msongs]

15. the new democrat prefers to not to look back nt

[leftofthedial]

16. or too far forward

apparently

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

20. ""My fellow Americans. As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball, but tonight I say, we must

move forward, not backward, upward not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!"

[madamesilverspurs]

21. Let's start agitating.

Number one on my hit list, though, would be HOMELAND. Gack. That just evokes everything that is wrong with the Patriot Act. Every time I hear "homeland" my mind goes to jackboots. It conveys a mindset that IS NOT US. It's gotta go.

[onenote]

23. on a list of important things to do, renaming the Dept of Homeland Security is pretty far down

the list.

Sure the name is grating. But it was first proposed by Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, not exactly well-known fascists. Second, it would literally cost millions of dollars for the government to rename the agency -- the cost of signage, stationary, etc etc. In the scheme of things, the public would think it was a ridiculous exercise. Over time, sure. But agitating for it now? A waste of time and a bad idea, imo.

[leftofthedial]

24. abolish it.

then renaming is moot

[onenote]

26. abolish fema? customs? secret service? coast guard?

They are among the 20 plus agencies that are part of the Dept of Homeland Security. Others include the Federal Protective Service, the Border Patrol, even the Plum Island Animal Disease Center.

I assume you don't really think that these agencies can or should be "abolished." Sure, you could break up DHS and put each of these agencies under some other department (for example, pre-DHS, the Secret Service was part of the Treasury Dept).

But the issue is the same -- given the cost and disruption that would be occasioned by reassigning these agencies and/or setting them up legally as stand alone bodies, proposing it would be regarded as absurd in the face of the current economic and budgetary issues that Obama is trying to address.

As I said, over time, maybe. Now -- a waste of time and a bad idea.

[leftofthedial]

27. no, of course not.

eliminate the TSA (or radically restructure it)

but break up the Fatherland Security Frankenagency

[onenote]

28. in due course,

But "agitating" for an expensive restructuring of DHS -- essentially moving the deck chairs around -- at a time when we're trying to deal with budget deficits etc would be a waste of time and political resources. There are a lot more important things to be agitating for now. DHS restructuring can/will wait.

[Freddie Stubbs]

22. Because they things are not high priorities of the Congress and the President

[leftofthedial]

25. Wall Street's unfettered access to our money is much more important.

I understand that.

[LWolf]

31. Because

those items have never been on the new administration's agenda.

Which is another of the many reasons I stand in opposition to the Obama administration.

[leftofthedial]

37. we've been bamboozled!

[onenote]

40. if you mean "bamboozled" in its second, less common meaning, I agree

Bamboozle:

1 : to deceive by underhanded methods : dupe , hoodwink
2 : to confuse, frustrate, or throw off thoroughly or completely

Yes, you've been confused. No, you haven't been deceived by underhanded methods.

[iamthebandfanman]

46. well actually obama stated he was for repealing the patriot act

when he was running for the senate...
and then voted to re-authorize it once he was in the senate...

to be fair, so did hillary clinton (said she was against it before voting to reauthorize it)