Patriot Act Abuse

Well, it all seems to me is that 9/11 was a wake up call for the US. The whole attack was carried out by people that where in this country for several months, AND it was known prior to 9/11 of them having connections to terrorist organisations. Hell, we even taught them how to fly the damn planes. We're taking allot of "minor things" more seriously because of it. The US really got caught unprepaired that day(aka- with our pants down), so now here comes increased security measures in all aspects. The patriot act is just one of these measures.

No-one is disputing that at all, but that's got nothing to do with the point at hand.

Please take an 'I Don't Get It' button...they're in a bucket by the door...

Oh no, I do get y'all point of veiw, I just don't agree with it. It's a new law.... It'll be reworked to get the bugs out.... And the two cases that are in the story are still bad examples to say that the act is being abused. Now please, grab one of those buttons for yourself

This'll go round and round and round, won't it?

They're not bad examples as they are not acts of terrorism and are being dealt with as if they were!

If you truly can't see that then don't be surprised when they come for you in the middle of the night and lock you up with no rights based on some trumped up bullshit charge...you've earned it.

I gues it will.

So tell me, what in your opion will be a possible act of terrorism? I mean, if building a pipe bomb and holding it in your lap while you drive down the street is no way a possible one, what is?
To me this is like saying a person is being wrongly accused of intent of drug dealing even though he was caught with 5 kilos of Cocaine in his backpack that where seperated out into 2 gram baggies.




[Edited on Sep 18, 2003 by flb0y]

Again you appear to be missing the point...it's not that the making of a pipe-bomb couldn't be an action of a terrorist at all, but rather is simply making a pipe-bomb a terrorist action in itself...?
Consequently immediately applying an act intended for curbing terrorism seems to be a cynical and disturbing action.

Discuss.

While we're discussing:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. (Benjamin Franklin)

Discuss.

Ok, I agree, building a pipebomb in and of itself is not a act of terrorism. When I was younger, making homemade TNT to blow a large stump out of the ground to save weeks of digging was not unheard of. You simply went out into your barn with some black powder, rigged pipe, etcetc. and made it. You then carried it from your barn to your stump.... you can figure out the rest. During this whole process it never left your property.
However, this individual was delivering this explosive device in his vehicle to who knows where. To top it all off, he was carrying it in his lap. this gives the apperance of wanting to make it easier to throw and run. It's these last two facts that persuade me to believe that this appears to be a possible failed act of terrorism.

Hey flboy, when i was a kid, we would make up homemade pipe bombs out of crimped copper tubing and black powder, lit by some model rocket fuse... we would take them on our bicycles, to a remote area near railroad tracks to set them off. Nobody got hurt, and nothing was destroyed.

Does this make every kid who has some harmless fun with powder a terrorist?

That dosen't say how big the "pipe bomb" was. It could have been 1oz of powder in a 3" copper tube, and still been a "pipe bomb". Obviously, if it was big enough to concern anyone, it would have killed the guy when it went off in his lap.

Well maybe, look at 'D-Day' in WWII, lots of guys stepped on mines, had a bomb land between there feet, EtcEtc, and survived. I even saw a recent interveiw with an old vet that told in detail how he on D- day tripped on his intestines , picked them up , shove them back in, and he's now like 90 yrs. old .
The article didn't say how bad tthe pipe bomber was hurt either.