From: Samantha (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sun Mar 16 2003 - 13:05:03 MST
Generally speaking I gave up on your posts a long time ago, Ron. So
whatever you ask me is not likely to be answered. However, I just
changed email software again and my blocks were temporarily down. I
am working in my spare time on an exhaustive list of what rights we
now on paper have lost and how those changes have in fact been used.
It will be in website form when I am done.
- samantha
On Saturday 15 March 2003 03:41 pm, you wrote:
> Humania,
> I wrote asking Samantha, "Would you be so kind as to quote
> the relevant sections of the law allowing the powers that you list
> above?" It would have been nice to have heard from Samantha on
> this issue. I would then have known that I was reading the
> material that she had taken as the basis for her comments.
> But you answered with the following: "Ron, your paranoid
> political leaders did not only turn French Fries into Freedom Fries
> - which in itself is kindergarten level -- but they are going to
> exchange your freedom for a shaky security in a future police
> state.
> Turn to the following URL where Patriot Act II is thoroughly
> explained:
> http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11835&c=206!
>
> Now the section "Ron, your paranoid political leaders did not only
> turn French Fries into Freedom Fries - which in itself is
> kindergarten level -- but they are going to exchange your freedom
> for a shaky security in a future police state" IMHO is pure
> partisan political writing and I will dismiss it out of hand.
>
> But the section, "Turn to the following URL where Patriot Act II is
> thoroughly explained:
> http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11835&c=206I
> appears to be responsive to my question, assuming that it is the
> answer that Samantha would have given. Until Samantha answers we
> will never know. Lets see what it says.
>
> The document under discussion says: "Interested Persons Memo:
> Section-by-Section Analysis of Justice Department draft “Domestic
> Security Enhancement Act of 2003,” also known as “PATRIOT Act II”"
>
> Humania you have just given us an ACLU commentary on a piece of
> writing that the ACLU says is a legislative draft by the Justice
> Department of the United States Government for something called the
> PATRIOT Act II. There isn't even a copy of the original, nor is
> there any indication as to who the writer was. I don't know what
> country you are from but many of our list members are from outside
> the US so let me expand on what we are looking at. Many pieces of
> "draft legislation" float around Washington, DC all the time. Some
> are more authoritative than others. I see no reason to question
> the ACLUs motives, they state them at the head of this piece of
> writing, they are drumming up new members. Still they will not get
> embarrassingly off the mark. After all they want to win members
> not to be laughed at. Someday possibly some person or persons that
> thinks the ideas contained in this "draft legislation" might decide
> it will make a good law. They may or may not rewrite it.
> Under the system we use in passing laws two sponsors for the
> proposed law will be found, one Republican and one Democrat. The
> Republicans name will be listed first as the Republicans control
> congress. The bill will be placed in the hopper and in due course
> it will go in front of one or more committees in both the House of
> Representatives and in the U. S. Senate. The committees will
> discuss the bill. Perhaps, in fact almost certainly, the bill will
> get rewritten to contain some unknown changes. When all the
> committees in each house finally agree the bill probably be
> reported to the entire body. Some bills die in committee so that
> is not a guarantee. The bill will be debated on the floor of the
> House or Senate and if passed (that is no guarentee either) it will
> be a committee made up of members from the House and the Senate.
> The Joint Committee will reconcile the two versions of the bill if
> differences exist. That will be done in accordance political
> bargaining between the House and Senate.
> The reconciled bill will be returned for further debate,
> changes and voting. Eventually the bill will be voted up or down.
> If the bill is passed it will go to our President for his
> consideration. He may accept the bill and sign it or he may veto
> the bill. He may call in the concerned members of Congress and
> discuss the bill. From here we may or may not get another round of
> writing, horse trading and voting. But even at this point we are
> not sure we will ever pass this law.
> I do think we must be careful not to use intemperate
> language on subjects such as this:
> First, as Americans we can scare the dickens out of foreign members
> that don't understand the American legislative system. Some people
> possibly won't know an American law from something that is less
> solid than a pipe dream. Let me give two quick examples. I think
> Harry S Truman first tried to pass Universal Medical Care in the
> nineteen forties. The thing has hung around every since, being
> proposed, discussed and then voted down for the time being. Dick
> Nixon proposed a Guaranteed Annual Wage in the early 70s. Both are
> still around, neither is law nor likely to be very soon. Second, as
> Extropians laws similar to Patriots Act II covers material that is
> of deep concern to us whether we are from the left or from the
> right. Using language that splits our group only weakens us and
> makes it easier for someone to actually pass such a monstrosity.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 16 2003 - 13:06:05 MST