is the US sliding into Fascism? Evidence for and against

You are right, I do tend to make a million points in my messages. I will try to stick to one or two per message to make things easier to reply to.Now, about the Patriot Act...

quote:

---

But before I address that, I would like to hear your view on Patriot Act I. Is there anything at all you agree with? Any provisions that, given the reality of 911, you view as necessary changes to previous legislation? Or do you consider ALL of it an unnecessary trampling of civil liberties?

---

Yep, it pretty much is all an unnecessary trampling of our constitutionally-protected civil liberties.Most of the provisions in PA1 allow more spying and searches on American citizens without any accountability or openness on the part of law enforcement.It also is poorly written, such that it defines "terrorism" and "domestic terrorist" in very broad ways that could easily include political dissidents. Remember the abuses of the CIA upon dissident groups in the 70's?Also, it allows non-citizens to be detained indefinitely without being charged with any crime, without a speedy trial and without any access to legal representation. The SCOTUS recently ruled that even American citizens could be held in this way, effectively eliminating habeas corpus in the US. So much for 500 years and the Magna Carta.I find that to be particularly egregious, since we are supposed to be the country that "brings the light of democracy" to the world, by example. What kind of example are we setting?Anyway, I believe that the Patriot Act was a really poor, far too wide-reaching and vague piece of civil liberty- and freedom-limiting legislation that was rammed through Congress at the only possible time it could get the votes; just over a month after 9/11.

quote:

---

Yep, it pretty much is all an unnecessary trampling of our constitutionally-protected civil liberties.

---

Since the Patriot Act is out, then you prefer the previous legislation in place before 911?

quote:

---

Since the Patriot Act is out, then you prefer the previous legislation in place before 911?

---

I think that many of the provisions in the Patriot Act would be justified if they had narrowly defined what "terrorist activities" and "terrorists" were so as not to include political activists, for example.Also, I would be much happier if there were much greater congressional oversight and accountability.The elimination of due process is a travesty and is a serious reduction in one of our most crucial civil rights.I am truly ashamed that we are now not the "most free" nation on earth.

But in your mind the Patriot Act is not justified at ALL, according to your previous post there is nothing beneficial to it, it is an unnecessary trampling of civil liberties. So lets's forget about it for the purposes of discussion.Am I to assume you prefer the status of pre 911 legislation as it pertains to terrorism?

We're getting way OT even though it's an interesting question.Of course, there is the third option that both the current and former legislation are seriously flawed.If you want to get into the issue of how terrorism might be addressed, a new thread would probably be advised.

---

**shrug** whatever schraffy wants. I'm trying to be nice and address her issues.

Jar, the Patriot Act is certainly a very large part of the evidence for the US sliding into fascism, so I actually don't understand why you think it needs it's own topic.However, I am going to only have limited time to play on the computer today, so I will only address your question briefly.Just because I don't like the PA doesn't mean I think that the previous legislation was or is adequate.We KNOW that the government will abuse power, especially if it is allowed to operate in secret. That's why the Founding Fathers gave us checks and balances, and why transparency in government is so important. They were the ultimate traditional conservatives, really, and would be appalled that Americans no longer have the right of habeas corpus.The Patriot Act is a skillful power grab by those Authoritarians in government who have been trying, unsuccessfuly, for years to pass laws to give law enforcement more power to invade people's privacy, spy on them, and not have to answer to anyone.If we have to give up our rights in order to feel safe, then the terrorists have already won.I contend that we can craft good legislation to better protect ourselves from attacks without trampling everyone's civil liberties.PA is not good legislation, as evidenced by the fact that many non-terrorists are being prosecuted using it.

I get it. You have said repeatedly you don't like any part of the PA. You consider it all a complete trampling of civil liberties. I understand.Saying it over and over again does not reinforce your point. If we are to continue in this thread, then answer the following question that I have posed to you 3 separate times now.Am I to assume you prefer the status of pre 911 legislation as it pertains to terrorism?

quote:

---

Am I to assume you prefer the status of pre 911 legislation as it pertains to terrorism?

---

Prefer to what?

The topic we have been discussing - the Patriot Act.You have said repeatedly you believe the Patriot Act I is a trampling of our civil liberties and that there is nothing beneficial to it.I said Ok then, fine, if the PA is no good, then am I to assume you prefer the status of pre 911 legislation as it pertains to terrorism?

quote:

---

You have said repeatedly you believe the Patriot Act I is a trampling of our civil liberties and that there is nothing beneficial to it.

​

I said Ok then, fine, if the PA is no good, then am I to assume you prefer the status of pre 911 legislation as it pertains to terrorism?

---

No.What makes you think that those are the only two options?

Because if you reject the current legislation which is in place, then we look at the legislation which was in place prior to 911. That is, previous legislation that was modified by the Patriot Act. Because that's what the PA is essentially, an expansion of previous law. But now it appears you reject all of that previous legislation as well.It is so very easy to criticize without basis, but putting forward your support of legislation is another matter isn't it?. So then I take it that you would like ALL law related to terrorism and terrorist activities removed from the books.ALL terrorist legislation enacted during the Clinton administration, Bush I, Reagan, well, let's just eliminate ALL of it shall we?There are always other options, sure, other legislation that can be put forward. But don't you think it's prudent to identify what is and is not acceptable legislation before adopting your solution which is a wholesale eradication of ALL terrorist legislation enacted in the past 30 years.

quote:

---

Because if you reject the current legislation which is in place, then we look at the legislation which was in place prior to 911.

---

...which was probably not adequate, I agree.

quote:

---

That is, previous legislation that was modified by the Patriot Act. Because that's what the PA is essentially, an expansion of previous law. But now it appears you reject all of that previous legislation as well.

---

No, not at all.ANd the PA is far, far more than just an "expansion" of previous law.It eliminates constitutional protections for citizens.

quote:

---

It is so very easy to criticize without basis, but putting forward your support of legislation is another matter isn't it?. So then I take it that you would like ALL law related to terrorism and terrorist activities removed from the books.

---

No, that would be stupid, and I don't advocate that at all.

quote:

---

ALL terrorist legislation enacted during the Clinton administration, Bush I, Reagan, well, let's just eliminate ALL of it shall we?

---

I really hate it when people erect strawman arguments.

quote:

---

There are always other options, sure, other legislation that can be put forward.

---

Exactly.There are nearly infinite options of other legislation, as a matter of fact.

quote:

---

But don't you think it's prudent to identify what is and is not acceptable legislation before adopting your solution which is a wholesale eradication of ALL terrorist legislation enacted in the past 30 years.

---

I really have no clue at all how you could EVER construe this from anything I have said about the PAtriot Act.It is a strawman of massive proportions.Let me ask toy something.How long did Congress have to read and consider the content of the Patriot Act before they were required to vote on it?

So none of the prior terrorist legislation is adequate. This is what you said in the previous post. Now you say maybe it was probably not adequate? Maybe some of it was and some wasn't?According to you The PA is more than an expansion of previous legislation but you don't want to discuss which previous legislation you think the PA is an expansion of.You say it would be stupid to eliminate all prior legislation. Why? Can you at least name some of the previous legislation that you don't find objectionable? Or is all of it objectionable? I can't tell.According to you the PA is bad and that should be the end of the discussion?Is that because you don't know which previous legislation you find objectionable?Maybe it doesn't matter to you and whatever it was, it was probably all bad anyway, right?

quote:

---

So none of the prior terrorist legislation is adequate. This is what you said in the previous post. Now you say maybe it was probably not adequate? Maybe some of it was and some wasn't?

---

Clearly, the fact that the different intelligence agencies were not required to share information was not adequate.I think this was the biggest inadequacy, but that more to do with beurocracy rather than individual citizens.

quote:

---

According to you The PA is more than an expansion of previous legislation but you don't want to discuss which previous legislation you think the PA is an expansion of.

---

No, actually you claimed that it was an expansion of previous legislation.Perhaps you could elaborate on what you mean?

quote:

---

You say it would be stupid to eliminate all prior legislation. Why? Can you at least name some of the previous legislation that you don't find objectionable? Or is all of it objectionable? I can't tell.

---

Well, we used to have the right, as American citizens, to not have our phones wiretapped without a court order. I think that is fine.I also think it was good that the government had to show that you are suspected of some kind of criminal activity before your private records are searched.It used to also be required that law enforcement be open to congressional oversight and accountability, so as to prevent abuses of power. I thought this was good, too.

quote:

---

According to you the PA is bad and that should be the end of the discussion?

---

I gave you many particular details of WHY the PA is bad.Haven't you been reading any of my messages?

quote:

---

Is that because you don't know which previous legislation you find objectionable?

---

Could be, but perhaps you could explain to me how my particular objections are somehow based upon faulty information?I mean, is it NOT true that we no longer have the right of habeas corpus? Is it NOT true that there is no congressional oversight of law enforcement in the PA? Is it NOT true that "terrorist activities" is very broadly defined in the PA?etc.I feel like we are going in circles.Do you believe that giving up our rights is OK?