The Patriot Act...

[eagle 0]

Keep in mind that small key word "illegal" search and seizure...

[Elgor 0]

HA since when does "Illegal search and seizure" come into to play when we're attacked?

[Travis Kroells 0]

Are we under attack Elgor? The "war" on terrorism is a complicated one at best. Under normal war situations, I would have less of a problem with all of this. But this isn't like anything we've fought before. I see it more as a policing acting then an actual war.

 

Anyways, regardless of what I believe the administrations reasoning for these events are, the facts are clear. There are no shells flying at us, missles being launched and heaven forbid again, airplanes crashing into buildings.

 

We are not in an active two way war per se. At the very most, the are people plotting against our country, which has been going on since 1776. So in my opinion, using the excuse that we're under attack to justifiy these illegal actions, is rather poor.

[Elgor 0]

sorry I meant to type "attack" as in sarcasstically

Edited January 2, 2006 by Elgor

[Travis Kroells 0]

Sorry, Im still missing your previous post's intent ;)

Edited January 2, 2006 by Travis Kroells

[Travis Kroells 0]

::Figures his words and actions are enough for some people to know what party he really belongs too::

[Elgor 0]

Please forgive me for believing a liberal Georgetown University professor who was on CSPAN but according to him, the Administration clearly broke the law. Hopefully after all the Neocons have been impeached will see a real conservative emerge. Lord knows there's been plenty of fire for the Phoenix. ;)

THAT WAS YOU!?!?!?! Man that was a day I'll never forget

[LoAmi 0]

Newspeak -- n. Deliberately ambiguous and contradictory language used to mislead and manipulate the public.

[Grom 0]

I would agree with Travis only in the sense that yes, we are fighting a different kind of war. The war on terrorism is complicated, but not because of the reasons why we fight, but what we are fighting against. We're not fighting a nation. We're not fighting a religion. What we are fighting is a culture, a culture that is so much against Western development that they are willing to prevent it at all costs, even if it means crashing a plane full of innocent people into buildings. This is not limited to Al queda. There are groups all over the world who want to see nothing more than the fall of the west and the end of liberal democracy.

 

The question is, how do you engage in a culture war? One way is to limit the influence that radicals have on the masses. Just as the Founding Fathers feared the influence of demagogues, we too must fear the influence of radical ideas and cut off those that hold them from positions of power. We did this in Afganistan by removing Al queda. We removed Sadam and his party in Iraq. But the work is not done; the work is never done. Just as there is no end to being vigilant in the protection of liberty, there is no true end to terrorism.

 

What can we hope for then? By separating the radicals from normal citizens of places like Afganistan and Iraq we can empower them with greater weapons than bombs and missles. We can empower them with ideas about what it means to be a citizen with responsibilities, what it means to have a choice, what it means to be free. We can help them harness the spirit within all of us that yearns to be free and to live without oppression. This, in my opinion, is the most important part to winning the culture war.

 

Culture matters. Ideas matter. We cannot be naive and think that they don't. If we are not vigilant, if we are not doing everything within our power to engage this culture that seeks to destroy everything that has been achieved since the Magna Carta, then we will see another 9/11.

 

::steps off soap box::

[Elgor 0]

uh The Founding Founders were technically radicals in England

[Dumbass 0]

What the United States really needs is the Federation's Prime Directive.

The Prime Directive was not an absolute ban on interference of anyone anywhere, and it certainly didn't mean the Federation couldn't have a foreign policy. It applied to people who had not achieved a certain level of technology, nothing more. It is not the appropriate model here.

Edited January 4, 2006 by Dumbass

[LoAmi 0]

Grom,

 

Assuming your analysis, how does giving up our civil liberties, which are essential to our democratic culture, help us "win" a culture war?

 

Ganval,

 

What do corporations and globalization have to do with the USA PATRIOT Act (it's in capitals because it's an acronym, not because I'm screaming!)? Anyway, being anti-globalization is something I never quite understood. Some form of globalization process is the inevitable result of advanced communication and transportation technology.

[Travis Kroells 0]

Firstly, kudos to LoAmi for bring up the culture war point that I was going to get around to saying ;)

 

Secondly, please correct me if I'm wrong Ganval, but do you really mean to say that America should have no contact with contries deemed "Less Advanced" then us, and almost more importantly, how would you define that?

 

Sheesh...I ended a lot of words with -ly.

[Merina 0]

oy-vei

 

::shakes head and wonder what this world is coming too::

[eagle 0]

::being a vetran,.......agrees with merina,....what indeed......oh ..wait ,it has

been prophesied before,has it not.... ;)

[STSF NDak 0]

Following my own advice, I've avoided posting much on this topic. But here goes.

 

The Patriot Act, in general, is a bad idea. It fundamentally restricts the very rights that it presumes to restrict, and that is not protecting.

 

That said, I think some of the parts of the Act are indeed okay, but for the most part it is a far over reach on the part of the Federal Government, particularly on the part of the Executive Branch.

 

I can go on for pages about the Patriot Act, but I doubt I'd say anything that has not already been said, so I'll stop there on that subject.

 

On the subject og globalization, I don't think it has very much to do with the Patriot Act. "Governments" have a duty to watch for these so called "radical" groups that protest trade conferences, because they have a fundamental right to protect the safety of those involved in the conferences, and they're allowed to do this so long as they do so with in the bounds of the law.

 

Globalization has had negative effects, but on the whole has done quite bit. However, by simply limiting what you call globalization to economic corpratism, you're missing the larger picture.

 

Which of course let's me say, try and keep the topic at least somewhat on topic, which is about the validity of the Patriot Act.

 

Secondly, everyone, please please, try and remain calm and civil while discussing it. Thank you and have a nice day.

[LoAmi 0]

What happens when, in the name of diversity, you allow foreigners to obtain a physics degree from an American university?

 

...

Without trying to explain how the war on terrorism fits into this puzzle, the governments of the world have also been spying on anti-globalization groups on behalf of corporations because every time there is a "free trade" conference the radicals hold violent protests.

 

Do you understand why some people might be against globalization when ...

The better question you should be asking is what happens if you *don't* allow foreigners to obtain a physics degree from an American university? The answer is that the number of workers in American university physics labs goes down, so does American productivity in physics, and then American dominance in the field goes down soon afterwards. The trend can already be seen with recent, new DHS academic visa hassles and restrictions on foreigners seeing certain technology in labs that they can readily learn about on the Internet [for example, a DHS restriction required university laboratories to report any foreigners who had access to such "secret technology" as computer clusters]. This is a trend in all science fields. Fewer foreigners are applying to American universities in science and American universities are suffering for it. Meanwhile, foreign universities have access to an increased labor and talent pool. It is a mistake to think that America is the only place with a good university system, or that American dominance in science and engineering is a given.

 

Anyone with a second year university physics education and the will to do it can learn how to make nuclear weapons. The theory is easy. Fortunately, nuclear weapons require extremely pure raw materials and a high-tech, expensive, and difficult to build apparatus in order to make them. Not everyone has one of those, and so, not anyone can make nuclear weapons. The idea that you can prevent common knowledge from crossing borders is laughably ridiculous.

 

I still don't understand how one can seriously think that *a* process of "globalization" can be stopped The process will occur with or without the protesters; as I already said, it's a natural consequence of advanced technology. I can see being against "free trade" or being pro-labor, pro-democracy or pro-environment (all political decisions) but not being against "globalization."

 

I think you may have misunderstood my question: what does globalization have to do with the PATRIOT Act? Even under previous law, the government could have used informants or other spying techniques against violent groups. It's a power that has to be overseen closely, however, to avoid simple targeting of political dissent.

[Grom 0]

Grom,

 

Assuming your analysis, how does giving up our civil liberties, which are essential to our democratic culture, help us "win" a culture war?

 

This, of course, is a classic debate: the tension between liberty and security. I think we can all agree that even within a democratic society, some civil liberties must be yielded in order for at least the minimum amount of security. Can you go too far? Absolutely. 9/11 shows us that you can also go not far enough. If you look at our nation's past, there are several examples of civil liberties being restricted during times of war. You can even use New Orleans 2005 as an example. In order to maintain order, certain liberties had to be curtailed so that order could be maintained. The key difference between a democratic society and an antidemocratic society is that when the need for security lessens, democratic societies will restore civil liberties.

[Grom 0]

I still don't understand how one can seriously think that *a* process of "globalization" can be stopped The process will occur with or without the protesters; as I already said, it's a natural consequence of advanced technology. I can see being against "free trade" or being pro-labor, pro-democracy or pro-environment (all political decisions) but not being against "globalization."

Well, I can see how one can be against the consequences of globalism. National security is far more complicated when your enemies suddenly are not limited by geography.

[Dumbass 0]

I'm not an environmental radical, but as a populist and social conservative, I can see good paying jobs being exported. You can't raise family values on a service industry salary.

Doctors? CPAs? Lawyers? Bankers? Architects? These are all service industries. Last I checked not too many people in these fields were starving.

 

With the exception of the software industry most of the jobs that are being exported are the lesser-skilled jobs, with corresponding lesser pay by US standards. It results in lower costs of production and higher profit margins for those products, which encourages other companies to enter those fields and provided us with greater consumer choice (a good thing). More choices in the market means more competition which has the effect of lower market prices (another good thing).

 

So by "buying American" you are in fact paying more than you would otherwise need to and reducing the options your next door neighbor can choose from.

[eagle 0]

So by "buying American" you are in fact paying more than you would otherwise need to and reducing the options your next door neighbor can choose from.

 

 

Just ask wal-mart employees,and patrons,yeah...right.

[LoAmi 0]

Well, I can see how one can be against the consequences of globalism.  National security is far more complicated when your enemies suddenly are not limited by geography.

 

National security is not the primary concern of most anti-globablization protestors :-) (I think that) Those worried about national security usually figure out that you can't win by blocking globalization. If one country tries to opt out of it, it will eventually come to them, and that country will be ill prepared to deal with its consequences.

 

Ganval,

 

It's interesting that the PATRIOT Act is being painted as an anti-globalization move. Especially since I think most of its supporters would cringe at the thought of being anti-globalization. I haven't read the transcript (or listened to the audio) yet. The simpler theory is that the debate is a result of the contining conflict between the civil libertarian and nationalist schools of American politics, with a load of raw fear turning the tables towards the nationalists. As far as I can tell, the difference in opinion involves the ultimate source of the fear.