1946 Time-Life article on post-WW2 European reconstruction
- Thread starter DemoCoder
- Start date
Evidently you don't read enough. Otherwise you wouldn't have made the silly comparison of the Patriot Act and US to Nazi Germany. Besides the obvious tripping of Godwin's law, the ludicrous hyperbole of Nazi state activity and law to current US Govt law (with respect to it's citizens) shows you are not a knowledgable reader of either the Act or of Nazi police state tactics.
The same statement can be made of you. Obviously you don't read enough if you cant see the parallels between the Patriot Act and the nazy laws in 30s.
But if you think you have a better understanding of the Patriot Act, you can write here some of its main points and we can see if what Im saying is right or not.
Please, start from the one which lets Police search a house WITHOUT even informing the owner.
We dont have any such law in Italy (my country) or in England (where I leave). Isn't it democratic?
But if you think you have a better understanding of the Patriot Act, you can write here some of its main points and we can see if what Im saying is right or not.
Please, start from the one which lets Police search a house WITHOUT even informing the owner.
We dont have any such law in Italy (my country) or in England (where I leave). Isn't it democratic?
) strikes me as being just such a law.Its only done under the supervision of the court (just like a normal search warrant or phone tapping). Its no different than phone tapping, except the physical intrusion.fek said:
It may, or may not be effective or useful. That's why the entire patriot act has a sunset clause (it will expire in several years unless voted on to continue).
Thats the whole idea. Find out what he's up to without tipping his hand.fek said:
And yes, you should find out about whether or not it requires a search warrant. It probably would have been better to do that BEFORE you went and formed an opinion and shared it with us.
RussSchultz said:
The opinion I shared is about the target not being informed and you kindly proved my point and you added you find this not-democratic behaviour acceptable.
Then you brought up the other topic and I'm not forced to be 100% sure about it. This doesnt mean I dont want to understand that aspect too.
Whether surveilance is secret or not has nothing to do with democracy.
The “Patriot Act†has as much democratic legitimacy as “Many Puliteâ€. Neither were subject to pleblestie. Insofar as having regular trails, Someone who I know who was caught up in this had a combined 4 hours of trial time in eight months. He was being held on a comment that someone made who was covering their own ass. There was absolutely no evidence, it was pretty much a Kangaroo court. Arrest someone, keep them in jail and see if they produce any names. That was the “modus operandiâ€. In the end he was released without any charges being laid. No apology no explanation he was not even allowed to know his accuser. Just what guaranteed freedoms are you referring too ?fek said:"Many Pulite"
I'll excuse you if you excuse my english
Everything was done under the democratic laws in that case, with regular trials and other guranteed freedoms.
What you say is true, but there's a slight difference. That "modus operandi" is illegal under italian laws and the judges acting that way were trialed by a court and arrested if found guilty.
While the "modus operandi" in the Patriot Act is PART of your laws. Not democratic laws, I would say. And totaly unjustified by the current state of facts.
While the "modus operandi" in the Patriot Act is PART of your laws. Not democratic laws, I would say. And totaly unjustified by the current state of facts.
You still haven't specified which part of the Patriot Act you are even talking about, 90% of the provisions expire in 2005 anyway. I think you've read some punditry, instead of the act itself, and are parroting leftwing puffery.
Secondly, you're posing a false dichotomy. Democracy does not require privacy. A society could be, completely, 100% transparent (everyone knows everything about everyone else and everything) and still be 100% democratic and free.
Democracy just means that power is vested in the people. It says nothing about whether or not your telephone records should be private.
Time to read some more books.
Secondly, you're posing a false dichotomy. Democracy does not require privacy. A society could be, completely, 100% transparent (everyone knows everything about everyone else and everything) and still be 100% democratic and free.
Democracy just means that power is vested in the people. It says nothing about whether or not your telephone records should be private.
Time to read some more books.
Johnny_Physics
Newcomer
DemoCoder said:
10 bucks say that the Patriot Act is here to stay, in some form or the other.
ByteMe said:
Here we go again...
If the UN resolution had legitimized invasion then we wouldn't have had that fuss about the second UN resolution which the US desperately tried to pass but in the end did not chose to put up for vote because it simply had no chance with three veto powers against it.
RM. Andersson
Newcomer
"Laws" that mostley are used to protect dictators are not that important anyway.
It´s much more important to fight for democracy, freedom and human rights. To do the right thing!
It´s much more important to fight for democracy, freedom and human rights. To do the right thing!
RM. Andersson
Newcomer
pax said:
Let´s say there is one doctor and 25 patients that need help. The doctor only have enough time and medicin to save 7 of them.
I guess with your logic you would tell the doctor: -Since you cant save all of them let them all die.
I think that we should do as much as we can to help people in the whole world get a better life. A life worth living with freedom and human rights.
Dictarors that murder and torture their own people should be removed from power. Even if we cant remove them all.
Similar threads
