# Obama extends patriot act

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Mrs.Lucysnow, May 30, 2011.

1. ### VardaThe Bug LadyValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,184
If that was the case, they could easily obtain a warrant. Instead, they just bundle me up with thousands of other people and use that to populate their database.

2. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

to hide all adverts.
3. ### VardaThe Bug LadyValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,184
LOL do you think that 51% of the prison population are drug dealers?
Those people are there for smoking a joint.

Prisons are a business here. They have to report to shareholders just like any other business. Private prisons trade value rise and fall on the market based on the number of people they put behind bars. Putting people in jail is a multi-million dollar business.

It just so happens that the limits between FBI and NSA are so blurry nowadays that provisions from the PATRIOT ACT keep popping up in national investigations that have nothing to do with fighting terrorism... Unless bank robbers can now be interpreted to be terrorists now according to the attorney general or something, as an example.

The thing that matters is that if they want information on anyone, they will get it, without the need to show probable cause.

However, this misses the point completely.
The point is that these constitutional freedoms exist for a reason, and living under the possibility that your rights no longer protect you is an unacceptable notion for a free country. A person may think twice before joining in a protest or speaking their mind for fear of harassment.

4. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

to hide all adverts.
5. ### VardaThe Bug LadyValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,184
Hahaha what transparency? Have you heard of the state secrets privilege?

6. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

to hide all adverts.
7. ### VardaThe Bug LadyValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,184
They may not care about little arthur, but you can be certain that they have information on you.

The govt's game is not to pile up on a person. They are into massive collection of data to be used when and how they please.

Here's a wiki with some links about NSA's call log
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_call_database

Here is how google helps make the data searchable;
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/29/BUQLUAP8L.DTL

And here is a thread I made in 2008 that got a whooping 11 posts:
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=82844

Don't you step out of line, little artur!

8. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,829
From your 2008 thread:

Because, as usual, you were over stating the what the Govt could do.

The NSA had NO ABILITY with that data to LISTEN to anybody.

The phone company logs do NOT contain the actual conversations.

What the NSA got was what numbers were called from what other numbers.

Wrong again.

Arthur

9. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,829
BS

These stats are for FEDERAL prisons.

You don't go to FEDERAL prison for smoking a joint.

Arthur

10. ### VardaThe Bug LadyValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,184
I did exaggerate, but that That doesn't change anything. It's a blatant abuse of power and disrespect to the constitution. Knowing who you called, when you called, how many times you called and for how long you talked tells almost as much about a person as the content of the call.

The fact that you chose to focus on my mistake and ignore everything else about the posts is to me a sign of the weakness of your position. Come to the light little artur! Admit it, you sympathize with my view.

11. ### VardaThe Bug LadyValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,184
Yes you doooo. Marijuana possession is a federal offense.

12. ### chimpkinC'mon, get happy!Registered Senior Member

Messages:
4,416
This is Houston. How did I get there? a car. My car.
I saw them taking the plates down! DUR! I shoulda walked farther.

No, but I tried to organize Anarcho-Syndicalists,(Which is probably why I find cat-herding to be so soothing and easy now...) put together a group, had plainclothes police show up to events me and my partners-in-mischief put together, helped book an advertise an Earth-First roadshow with this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darryl_Cherney

And drove him and his giant hair to Dallas.

But I'm given to understand any time a Prez comes to town, the Secret Service checks the whereabouts of something like 50,000 people.

Arthur

Maybe. I remember reading somewhere that they kept a file on anyone with a Bachelor's degree or greater, and that was back in the paper days.

The thing is, is they have the capacity to store so much...they can get info they themselves are not directly allowed to acquire...and the AI to process that vast quantity of data is coming along.

http://www.nsawatch.org/echelonfaq.html

Now watching is one thing. The question in my mind is...what will they do with the info?

Of course ANOTHER question in my mind, is, how can we start feeding the giant datamining apparatus enough bogus info to make it completely worthless?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

13. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,829
Yes, but just possession is a MISDEMEANOR.

So first FEDERAL charge is just a fine (< $1,000). On the second offense there is a Mandatory Miniumum stay, but it's only 15 days. So NO, our Federal prisons are not filled with people caught smoking a joint. Indeed, the FEDs aren't the people who normally bust people for smoking a joint since they aren't operating in that kind of environment (not doing traffic stops, not policing concerts etc). If you are in a Federal Prison on a drug charge you were almost for sure growing, manufacturing, selling or smuggling in decent quantities of drugs. Arthur 14. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member Messages: 7,829 It was no abuse of the Constitution since they never DEMANDED or FORCED the phone companies to turn over the data. They asked for the call logs and most companies gave it to them. No it's not. You clearly LIED about what they were doing. You clearly stated that they were LISTENING to our conversations, when it was clear right from the beginning of this event that this was only call LOGS that NSA had and not CONVERSATIONS. No one at NSA was listening to our calls. And you KNEW that. And you also knew that the NSA had a very clear need and purpose for these call logs (to root out terrorist cells operating in the US by tracking the incoming calls from known foriegn terrorists and then seeing who that person subsequently called in the US) and no sinister purpose at all. Yet you, and others like you with a similar agenda, kept repeating the LIE that it was our conversations that were being reviewed by the NSA. Why do you feel the need to LIE about this? Arthur 15. ### RickyHValued Senior Member Messages: 1,317 This sums it all up. We're like the beta mac, compared to the ipads. Thanks Arthur, you make us americans look good. Now lets wait until some one with enough money or political power and motivation can challenge it. Its the american way. 16. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member Messages: 7,829 And so there you go. Every town the pres goes to they check out the people, and as you point out, thats many thousands per city, and thus the list has to be at least a million people, and thus where are you on this list? Again, nowhere because you aren't really a threat. And that's what they would have concluded early on. But we DO want them keeping track of people who ARE credible threats. Don't we? It helps to read your own links. Clearly the link is all about supposition, but when we follow the link to the actual EU investigation into Echelon what do we find: And http://cryptome.org/echelon-epmr.htm Arthur 17. ### iceauraValued Senior Member Messages: 30,994 You're not a sheeple, you're a shill. Meanwhile, the notion that successfully propagandized (and therefore popular) or simply concealed (and therefore unrecognized) authoritarian abuse is therefore justified (on democratic principles, the citizens being assumed to be governing themselves as they choose, a priori) is interesting, but poor support for other claims of justification. I take it that you are simply abandoning your past assertions of Constitutionality, credible innocence, reasonable support in honest principle, etc? Whatever they can get away with is OK, because they can get away with it? They did in the past. Budget cuts? Besides, the spying is automated these days. And the pressing reasons remain numerous. A "pressing reason" is of course anything that interferes with what an authority wants to do - they have plenty of time to spy on individuals that get in their way, or threaten their interests. Authoritarian governments also have very effective political techniques involving the making of examples out of individuals here and there - hammering the visible nail, as a lesson to the rest. They don't need to spy on all the individuals - just a few, now and then. Not necessarily. Not in the realm of political force, where legalities and warrants and such details have been set aside - the official and public record bears less and less resemblance to the actual efforts of "government", in such a world. So this, for instance, is a more or less obvious admission of capability and interest - a threat: So, for example, a system exists, and is used, and cannot be even exposed let alone blocked, whereby anyone who posed any threat to Dick Cheney's interests in the Iranian oil industry while he was VP could be monitored in all their electronic communications by Cheney himself, or anyone he designated, without risk to the monitors. 18. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member Messages: 7,829 Yeah, that's the next most common charge made by people with weak arguments, that people who disagree with you are "Shills" LOL Arthur 19. ### John99BannedBanned Messages: 22,046 Interestingly enough it is often the minority opinion that is the sheeple...but if you go to web site who's main interest is selling dvd's etc or if i go to sites with a big donation link then what do you expect? Iceaura is just a parrot. Last edited: Jun 13, 2011 20. ### VardaThe Bug LadyValued Senior Member Messages: 6,184 Now now little arthur, iceaura just spent his time replying to your comments, and you ignored the whole post. Is that the way to behave in a civilized discussion? Or is that all you have to say? 21. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member Messages: 7,829 No, I've already spent too much time in useless and pointless debates with Iceaura. He never changes his views even when shown he's wrong and since he frequently just makes shit up, so what's the point? Arthur Last edited: Jun 13, 2011 22. ### VardaThe Bug LadyValued Senior Member Messages: 6,184 A mandatory minimum stay only means that a judge can't send that person to prison for less time than that, The maximum stay is defined by him. First time offenders are charged$1000 fine and can stay in prison for up to 1 year.
Second offenses up the fine to \$2500 and comes with mandatory minimum, but the time spend is hardly ever the minimum.
Any offense after that is considered a felony.

All of these have no specification of amount, so it doesn't matter if you have a hundred pounds, or a joint.

I agree with you that federal agents are not going around busting people for smoking a joint. They bust people for getting in their nerves. The drug charge is merely the only thing they can frame you under. Gotta keep people under control.

lol where do you get your info, little arthur?

23. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,829
Where do you get yours?

You left out the part that possession (of any amount) is a misdemenor.

So you want to show me how many people are in Federal Prison for a MISDEMENOR?

YOU made the assertion that people in Federal Prison are there just for smoking a joint.

Provide some proof to back that up.

I got my data from a reasonably reputable source:

And

ie Smugglers

http://www.famm.org/Repository/Files/Marijuana FAQ 8.24.10.pdf

And here:

http://www.ussc.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Annual_Reports_and_Sourcebooks/2009/Table33.pdf

105 people for simple possession of Marijuana vs 24,000 for drug trafficking.

And I'd bet a zillion packs of Zig Zag that not one of those simple possession convictions were because someone was just smoking a joint.

Arthur

Last edited: Jun 13, 2011