MOSSAD and the CIA are everywhere, and they are masters of disguise; just ask Al Jareeza's audience. Don't be fooled by the old 'dog in the trash' ruse. Burn all your records and correspondence immediately ...

__________________
"The real question of life after death isn't whether or not it exists, but even if it does, what problems this really solves." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

"A day without sunshine is, you know, night."- Shannon

This guy was effected,
YouTube - USA using Patriot Act against its own citizens

__________________

Well, maybe he'll be kind enough to come here and post. Again, read the title of the thread...

__________________
Science flies you to the moon.

Religion flies you into buildings.

The OP appears to be using this thread in an attempt to argue against the supposition that the Patriot Act takes away liberty.

That civil rights will go away. That people can be arrested and placed in jail forever without trial. That search warrents will no longer be needed and law enforcement would be doing "midnight raids". That immigrants will be locked up in concentration camps.

However, just because the PA may not have affected forum posters here personally does not mean it has not taken away liberty or that it has not affected anyone negatively. The suggestion in the title/OP combo is that, if nobody on this board has been personally oppressed, then the PA has not oppressed anyone. However, that is simply invalid reasoning and some people refuse to play by those illogical rules.

Were you "blowed up" prior to the PA? How is this relevant?

The OP asks a straightforward question; there's no "suggestion".

There's nothing that suggests that, if it's affected no one here, that it hasn't affected anyone anywhere.

You're reading into it more than required...

__________________
Science flies you to the moon.

Religion flies you into buildings.

…or maybe they’re just not idiots that would rather not walk around with targets painted on their backs.

Your chances of being affected by the Patriot act while not engaging in terrorist activities are even more remote, so what’s your point?

__________________
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” - Lord Palmerston

What does the PA have to do with a target on your back? The government already had power to protect people from some terrorism, just not all conceivable forms of it.Actually, we don't know how many people have been affected by PA due to the secrecy surrounding it. Like the kid above. What if he had been older and lived alone? Not to mention phone taps.

Furthermore, there is the guarantee that your rights have been reduced. As Porras said: It's not so much about what the government is doing as what it is allowed to do. My life hasn't been changed one bit by the PATRIOT Act, but the back door has been left unlocked for the government. If I publicly voice my distaste for the American government and suggest a real change, that door is open to any number of law enforcement agencies.

The OP does way more than ask a question. You'd know this if you read past the title and looked at the content of his post.

So tell me, how has the Patriot Act actually affected your life? Has anybody here (or an immediate family member-friend) been locked up for violating it?

[...]

Because according to so many, this is absolute evil.

In other words, he wants us to back up the idea that the PA is bad (or "absolute evil") using only personal examples or those of immediate family members and friends. But if getting locked up makes the PA bad, then does it really matter if the PA resulted in locking up a family member or a stranger?

If it's bad because it locks up innocent people, then it can be shown to be bad using examples of total strangers being locked up and not just from examples of friends and family members.

The OP intentionally (and needlessly) limited the pool from which supportive examples can be brought. It's like saying I want you to prove that some people have been wrongly executed, but you can only use yourself or your close family members. In reality, you can bring in an example of a total stranger being wrongly executed and it would still prove your point.

My main point was that it's unnerving to realize your private telephone conversation can be monitored and/or recorded without your permission at the behest of the Federal government. Naturally I'm curious about precisely who left those stickers, but if they are accurate then the author matters less than the message.

That's a big "if".

Think about it. The sticker says that the particular phone in the photo is tapped.

How would someone know that?

I think we can safely dispense with the idea that the government put the sticker there so, given that, who would do it?

How about some twit who was pissed off about what he believed the Patriot Act would do, and then decided to put those on pay phones just to vent his anger and try to make a point?

__________________
Science flies you to the moon.

Religion flies you into buildings.

First sensible thing you've said all week. The differences between "yes," "no," and "maybe" are enormous here. If there is any possibility of my private conversation being monitored or recorded by agencies of the federal government, am I not entitled at bare minimum to a warning--or better, a full explanation of the protocol for monitoring conversations of private citizens? No, because that might jeopardize national security? Or yes?

You said the Patriot Act affected you when you saw that sticker.

How did it affect you? Did you plan to use that phone, but felt compelled to use another?

__________________
Science flies you to the moon.

Religion flies you into buildings.

Then you need to buy a clue.

Thanks for demonstrating a complete lack of a grasp of the Constitution.

Don't call yourself a conservative. It's embarrassing.

Education, look into it.

Terrorist groups, such as al Qaeda have decided that any American anywhere in the world is a target. This gives law enforcement more tools to try to erase those targets.


We also don’t know how many attacks have been averted by terrorists who believed their plans and/or their lines of communication had been compromised by the Patriot Act, but we do know of 27 separate attacks on US soil that have been thwarted by law enforcement since it was enacted. This is a choice between potentials. Which is worse; potentially more terrorism in the US, or the government potentially misusing the authority it’s been granted. Personally, I trust the government more than the terrorists.

__________________
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” - Lord Palmerston