sorry, but judicial review still applies to the patriot act, just not up front. are you familiar with the laws which stalin and hitler regimes operated with regarding domestic threats?

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"

Why is that right winged, reactionaries are satisfied giving Bush, Cheney, and their cronies expanded privacy while infringing on the average citizen's privacy?

who are these average citizens? and whats happening to them?

__________________

www.myspace.com/crusade7

because terrorists arent the average citizens.

actually, the PA does not give the government any more authority than it already had. the only change is in sequence of events. rather than judicial review coming first, it comes later in order to not F*** up the process of defending the country from pathetic mutants who try to kill 'average citizens.'

The day that I see the PA wrongfully applied to myself or anyone i know, i will gladly join you in your outspoken protest. until then, i will feel better about my self and my fellow citizens because we live in a country that does not extend civil rights to jihadists.

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"

I have to say, this is an awesomely cynical way of looking at "government authority."

So, suppose a law "changes the sequence of events" such that the executive branch of the federal govt can perform any sort of action - an arrest, an execution, a search, a seizure, an act of war - before judicial review or congressional authorization. You do not see this as giving the government (particularly executive) more authority than it already had?

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

ah, but we arent talking about the patriot act anymore. only the words in bold are what the government can do under the PA.

if it came to acts of war, or executions, then of course i would consider that excessive authority.

the PA is simply a logical compromise to address a new problem. What do you feel about lawyers arguing in a court over whether or not to arrest a POS terrorist, and as that is going on, said POS blows up a school?

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"

To me, a neocon is one who is neither conservative nor liberal. They aren't conservative as is seen in their passion for initiating radical changes and they aren't liberal as is evidenced by their elitist/authoritarian penchant for dictating desired results.

Essentially, I find neocons to be just typical self-righteous authoritarians. They want the world to conform to their bias - and are willing to engage force to make it so.

Then how do you explain the fact that the 1st Patriot Act was just pulled off the shelf after 9/11?

Every single article in the Patriot Act was put forward at one time or another previously (and rejected by Congress) over the last twenty years or so. It is a simple wish-list of FBI police state authoritarians that was rushed into law when the political environment conveniently permitted it. The FBI has asked for (and was denied) these police-state powers repeatedly going all the way back to J. Edgar Hoover.

If you review all prosecuted cases under the Patriot Act since its inception, you may find that 'national security' citations are extremely rare cases. Peace protesters and drug dealers are by far the majority application of the Patriot Act in practice - one suspects this is as it was meant to be all along.

any sources or citatations for your claim about the rareness of national security cases?

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"

Hobbes maintained that men readily trade their liberty, the right to do as they wish, for security. See Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1660). And, one need only look to the Patriot Act of 2001 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to see that this is true.

You do realize that is the most mis-used quote ever? First, there is no such thing as liberty without security, because with no security, you are subject to a myriad of dangers. So obviously, there is a balance between the two. Second, I am still free to do what I want under the Patriot Act. Good attempt at using the quote, though.

The quote is also flawed because the general population of the US did not demand the Patriot Act or even pay much attention to is enactment. So we can't say that they 'readily traded' away their liberty, given massive ignorance.

BTW, When you go back the 1600's and 1700's for political theory, you are implying that there hasnt been smarter humans since then, and you are also implying that the world today is exactly the same as it was then.

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"

No such thing as liberty without security? You do know that the most extreme of liberty is anarchism? And that being anarchism in it's most extreme form. Liberty doesn't need security at all to work, no matter how dangerous it is. Liberty is not the same things as rights, which does need protection to have any meaning. There's no "obvious balance" between liberty and security at all, most of the time "security" is the antithesis of liberty (notice the goose-eyes).
If you think he implied that there hasn't been smarter men since Hobbes because he quoted him, you're a fool. That's just way to stupid.

Lot's of things haven't changed since then, the huge themes; Freedom vs. "Security", Love vs. Hate, Right vs. Left (as said, in shapes), my religion vs. your religion, "Good" vs. "Evil" etc. It just shifts shape a little. These are old concepts, and have been discussed many times before the 17th century. Just because my hair is 0,0001 cm longer today than yesterday doesn't mean I am unrecognizable and a totally different person. I will always change, but most of me will just be a different shape of what I am now.

__________________
To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used. - Richard Dawkins

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned

MY CAPSLOCK KEY IS BROKEN LOL - Will be stumbled upon several times on the web.

Clash

Liberty, as understood in the American context, involves, life, property, the pursuit of livelihood, etc. I will go out on a limb and say that liberty and what it is rests on subjective opinion, and the overwhelming majority of people would not define anarchy as true liberty. Most Americans define liberty as their ability to peacefully pursue a stable life, and that most defineately requires security. Sorry if your anarachy philosophies dont hold water with reality.
LOL So we have only grown a .0001 inch in three hundred years? Where do nuclear weapons fit in that context? Are they the .000000001 of an inch? My friend, things like nuclear weapons, industrial revolutions, industrial total warfare, oil based economies, have rapidly changed the complexion of social societies and how they are governed. Your 1 cm analogy is completely illegitamate, unrealistic, and totally arbitrary.

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"

I don't care how you understand it, just look at how you americans "understand" liberalism. Or how terrorists "understand" righteousness.

Look, there's two types of liberty - negative, and positive. Negative liberty is being protected from e.g excessive authority by state/corporates etc., and positive is the liberties you have to achieve things. The ultimate form of negative liberty would be the lack of any government/corparates etc., as there wouldn't be anything excessive authority to be protected from.

As to positive liberty, with no state/no laws/no police etc, there wouldn't be anything that could stop you from doing/achieving anything you want.

Of course, there could be other things that could stop you, but that would be out of the realm of state/government and is irrelevant. And notice how I'm not suggesting people want full liberty. The liberty to kill is a liberty, although one liberty very few wish. You can say we have to restrict liberty, and that there should be a balance to make liberty as well-balanced and effective as possible. But that's something you can call better liberty, rather than more liberty.

That's a strawman. You seem to get desperate.
No, it's very fine. It had sucked if I said my hair had grown 0,0001 cm over three hundred years, but I only said overnight. My hair would probably grow very far if I was alive for 300 years. Your lack of ability to put things in proportion seem to halt you.

__________________
To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used. - Richard Dawkins

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned

MY CAPSLOCK KEY IS BROKEN LOL - Will be stumbled upon several times on the web.

Clash

I can just as easily say i do not care about how you understand liberty. that ends that, according to your reasoning.

BTW, dude, you were the one who applied the stupid hair analogy to three hundred years, as i made the point about hailing political theory of three hundred years ago! you just criticized yourself!

in response to me criticizing the relevance of Hobbes, (a guy from three hundred years ago) you came back with the hair crap, saying much hasnt changed since hobbes.

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"