Sliding further down the slippery slope
- Thread starter kosar
- Start date
kosar quote:"Sure, they might find some knives and guns and drugs, but let's(our government) stop using this bullshit excuse of 'war on terrorism' for every policy that erodes our freedoms."
i may be naive on this but i'm missing what
freedoms have been eroded ?
i may be naive on this but i'm missing what
freedoms have been eroded ?
Here are a few things, AR. To me, the most important, right on point, part of the article is the last paragraph.
--------------
Since Sept. 11, to help in terrorist investigations, the government has been given the power to:
*Monitor religious and political institutions and the Internet without any demonstrated suspicion of criminal activity.
*Close once-public immigration hearings and secretly detain hundreds of people without charges. It also has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests.
*With a subpoena from a special "spy court," examine bookstores and library records without having to show probable cause that a crime has been committed.
*Allow federal agents to monitor attorney-client conversations in federal prisons.
*Jail terrorist suspects without bringing formal charges.
*Search and seize papers and effects without probable cause.
The restrictions are justified by administration officials as wartime protections, and follow long, and often controversial, historical precedent.
Not the first time
During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus, holding prisoners without explanation. Lincoln even banned the distribution of newspapers with Southern sympathies.
Anarchists, pacifists and communists were jailed during World War I under the Espionage and Sedition acts, supported by President Woodrow Wilson.
And President Franklin Roosevelt ordered the detention of 120,000 Japanese-Americans during World War II, an act that the Supreme Court at the time did not overturn.
Among civil liberties advocates the changes have raised concerns that the concessions are counter to the fundamentals of American democracy and can lead to abuse if they are carried out in secret, as happened during the Vietnam War.
Also last month, a secret federal court that approves spying on terrorism suspects refused the Justice Department's request for broad powers to fight terrorism, saying the department and the FBI had given the court wrong information more than 75 times over the past two years.
The ability to infiltrate political and religious groups, to eavesdrop through the Internet, to use roving warrants that allow investigators to tap into multiple phones without receiving separate warrants and to detain noncitizens indefinitely without charges or providing a lawyer raise grave concerns.
Whenever the FBI and the CIA have been given powers, they've abused them terribly, citing domestic spying on anti-war protesters during the Vietnam War.
During the Vietnam War, there was talk the protesters against the war in Vietnam were traitors. The love it or leave it mentality. It's only a step from that to say, basically we have an attorney general who says if you question him, you're helping and giving comfort to terrorists.
The arguments over civil liberties raging in the aftermath of Sept. 11 may seem beyond the experience of lawful citizens. But some observers say the impacts ultimately touch everyone.
Attorney General Ashcroft's new regulations violate the standards put in place to prevent the law enforcement abuses that took place in the '50s and '60s.
The most important thing in this whole debate is that we don't use the emotions that come from 9/11, which was a terrible thing, to forward policy and practice that will take away who we are as a nation.
--------------
Since Sept. 11, to help in terrorist investigations, the government has been given the power to:
*Monitor religious and political institutions and the Internet without any demonstrated suspicion of criminal activity.
*Close once-public immigration hearings and secretly detain hundreds of people without charges. It also has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests.
*With a subpoena from a special "spy court," examine bookstores and library records without having to show probable cause that a crime has been committed.
*Allow federal agents to monitor attorney-client conversations in federal prisons.
*Jail terrorist suspects without bringing formal charges.
*Search and seize papers and effects without probable cause.
The restrictions are justified by administration officials as wartime protections, and follow long, and often controversial, historical precedent.
Not the first time
During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus, holding prisoners without explanation. Lincoln even banned the distribution of newspapers with Southern sympathies.
Anarchists, pacifists and communists were jailed during World War I under the Espionage and Sedition acts, supported by President Woodrow Wilson.
And President Franklin Roosevelt ordered the detention of 120,000 Japanese-Americans during World War II, an act that the Supreme Court at the time did not overturn.
Among civil liberties advocates the changes have raised concerns that the concessions are counter to the fundamentals of American democracy and can lead to abuse if they are carried out in secret, as happened during the Vietnam War.
Also last month, a secret federal court that approves spying on terrorism suspects refused the Justice Department's request for broad powers to fight terrorism, saying the department and the FBI had given the court wrong information more than 75 times over the past two years.
The ability to infiltrate political and religious groups, to eavesdrop through the Internet, to use roving warrants that allow investigators to tap into multiple phones without receiving separate warrants and to detain noncitizens indefinitely without charges or providing a lawyer raise grave concerns.
Whenever the FBI and the CIA have been given powers, they've abused them terribly, citing domestic spying on anti-war protesters during the Vietnam War.
During the Vietnam War, there was talk the protesters against the war in Vietnam were traitors. The love it or leave it mentality. It's only a step from that to say, basically we have an attorney general who says if you question him, you're helping and giving comfort to terrorists.
The arguments over civil liberties raging in the aftermath of Sept. 11 may seem beyond the experience of lawful citizens. But some observers say the impacts ultimately touch everyone.
Attorney General Ashcroft's new regulations violate the standards put in place to prevent the law enforcement abuses that took place in the '50s and '60s.
The most important thing in this whole debate is that we don't use the emotions that come from 9/11, which was a terrible thing, to forward policy and practice that will take away who we are as a nation.
This is pretty much what I meant with my earlier comment about waking up one day with highway checkpoints being considered normal.
"What worries me most is not the proposed changes or the shift to more state involvement in our daily lives and a greater abundance of information being gathered on us. It is the fact all this is decided behind closed doors, without any public debate and without any consultation with the electorate. This adds to the suspicion that what is being done in our name and for our benefit is rarely such.
Our rights may be eroded but no one is telling us precisely why. We have to live in faith that our elected representatives know best and care about us. So much faith is required in this and so much PASSIVE ACCEPTANCE(capital letters mine) that I suspect we'll only notice the changed landscape of our freedoms once it is ? fait complete."
"What worries me most is not the proposed changes or the shift to more state involvement in our daily lives and a greater abundance of information being gathered on us. It is the fact all this is decided behind closed doors, without any public debate and without any consultation with the electorate. This adds to the suspicion that what is being done in our name and for our benefit is rarely such.
Our rights may be eroded but no one is telling us precisely why. We have to live in faith that our elected representatives know best and care about us. So much faith is required in this and so much PASSIVE ACCEPTANCE(capital letters mine) that I suspect we'll only notice the changed landscape of our freedoms once it is ? fait complete."
Kosar
Kosar
The main point I was trying to make is about the many things that go on here in Chicago. Invasion of privacy is common place here. I'm sure stuff such as the examples I stated goes on elsewhere as well every day. You were bringing up the Boston situation and I was trying to tell you that is everyday here in Chi-town.
The second point I was making is the ACLU is a pile of dung.
The 3rd point I would like to make is that we have enough laws in existence now. Enforcement of current federal and state laws would probably go a lot farther to deter any problems from terrorists, than spot checking people. This goes for gang-bangers etc as well. More laws generally, not always, cause more problems for law abiding citizens, and do nothing to fight crime. It's a bunch of politicians talking loud and saying nothing. It's all to make the general public "feel" safe.
The security I've seen at the airports, including our O'hare, is a joke. For all the talk and changes, some nasty prick could have his way anytime he wants. Again, it's just to make us sheep "feel" safe.
Kosar
The main point I was trying to make is about the many things that go on here in Chicago. Invasion of privacy is common place here. I'm sure stuff such as the examples I stated goes on elsewhere as well every day. You were bringing up the Boston situation and I was trying to tell you that is everyday here in Chi-town.
The second point I was making is the ACLU is a pile of dung.
The 3rd point I would like to make is that we have enough laws in existence now. Enforcement of current federal and state laws would probably go a lot farther to deter any problems from terrorists, than spot checking people. This goes for gang-bangers etc as well. More laws generally, not always, cause more problems for law abiding citizens, and do nothing to fight crime. It's a bunch of politicians talking loud and saying nothing. It's all to make the general public "feel" safe.
The security I've seen at the airports, including our O'hare, is a joke. For all the talk and changes, some nasty prick could have his way anytime he wants. Again, it's just to make us sheep "feel" safe.
Question: Is Ashcroft going to use the patriot act to invade our pragmatic personal freedoms that we now enjoy? By pragmatic personal freedoms, I'm specifically talking about this gaming related site and gambling from our homes and offices at work via the internet. These freedoms may not now be legal, but we currently can use them so for now they're pragmatic freedoms (lacking a better discription at present)
Are these freedoms going to be forfeited as a result of the logical expression of the patriot act? Ashcroft has already used it to prosecute bookies so players can't be far behind, especially with the right wing's view on internet gaming. Just remember, when it's too late to object to not being able to access this site or any of the gaming sites on the internet, the hammer has already fallen and there will be no 'going back'.
Are these freedoms going to be forfeited as a result of the logical expression of the patriot act? Ashcroft has already used it to prosecute bookies so players can't be far behind, especially with the right wing's view on internet gaming. Just remember, when it's too late to object to not being able to access this site or any of the gaming sites on the internet, the hammer has already fallen and there will be no 'going back'.
Auspice you just never know. Keep in mind the feds believe drugs and gamling somehow run togeather.
Kosar we lost 3000 on 9/11 not all Americans. When we talk about loss of soldiers lifes in Iraq some think it's not to bad. After all they say we lose over 40000 a year on our highways. So maybe we should not worry if we lose a few more thousand at home to a few bombers. Since we kill each other off anyway. And since 1000 soldiers lifes are not that bad. We dont need all our liberties taken away. Who we trying to save the 40000 that will die anyway. I know Kosar the logic is nuts. But you read some of the post here the last year and these words of logic you will find. So it's confusing that we dont care about our highways of death. And Lets Not worry about a 1000 soldiers. But we are worried about someone blowing up a train and killing 200. We had lots of work to do before terror even hit home. Did you see anyone really give a chit. Nope.
Kosar we lost 3000 on 9/11 not all Americans. When we talk about loss of soldiers lifes in Iraq some think it's not to bad. After all they say we lose over 40000 a year on our highways. So maybe we should not worry if we lose a few more thousand at home to a few bombers. Since we kill each other off anyway. And since 1000 soldiers lifes are not that bad. We dont need all our liberties taken away. Who we trying to save the 40000 that will die anyway. I know Kosar the logic is nuts. But you read some of the post here the last year and these words of logic you will find. So it's confusing that we dont care about our highways of death. And Lets Not worry about a 1000 soldiers. But we are worried about someone blowing up a train and killing 200. We had lots of work to do before terror even hit home. Did you see anyone really give a chit. Nope.
Last edited:
Do you think these laws were enacted to harrass your ave citizens???- I have no doubt that there will be isolated abuses and no way to avert them but whats the trade off on fanatical terrorists being protected.
While your list below does show some concerns I would assume that terrorist and criminals are not real happy with it either. Terrorists have no rights and with AR I have no objection to being searched and would much rather have the gov monitoring my computer than some hacker.
I know if they made me make the choice there would be only 2 considerations. Would I rather face apologizing to the innocent that were unjustly targeted or face the families of potentially 1000's of casualities that I my decision could be ultimately responsible for.
I would agree with you whole heartedly on several issues in normal times--but these are far from normal.
My biggest concern "if" we ever win war on terror-- is going back and having a lot of these new laws recinded. The gov (state and fed) is infamous for putting in laws and taxes for special situations but once prob is resolved they always "forget" to repeal them.
While your list below does show some concerns I would assume that terrorist and criminals are not real happy with it either. Terrorists have no rights and with AR I have no objection to being searched and would much rather have the gov monitoring my computer than some hacker.
I know if they made me make the choice there would be only 2 considerations. Would I rather face apologizing to the innocent that were unjustly targeted or face the families of potentially 1000's of casualities that I my decision could be ultimately responsible for.
I would agree with you whole heartedly on several issues in normal times--but these are far from normal.
My biggest concern "if" we ever win war on terror-- is going back and having a lot of these new laws recinded. The gov (state and fed) is infamous for putting in laws and taxes for special situations but once prob is resolved they always "forget" to repeal them.
Know your enemy
Know your enemy
Certainly I think this is a step in the right direction. I share StevieD's concerns. I ride the T almost daily, and I don't know, you just see this mass of people, and can't help think that something could happen almost any time. We can take so many different extremes on these issues though:
Close borders, deport illegals: YES. This should have been done a long time ago, but it wasn't. Now illegal immigration has run rampant, and there is little we are doing about it. Patrick Buchanan was branded a Nazi and a racist for even considering these ideas....now many don't think it to be so far out there...
I have nothing to hide, so I don't care: Very valid argument. My friend always tell his g/f this in this discussion, and she talks about civil rights etc, but gardenweasel has a very valid point, that these are the same people that will say that we're not doing enough if the nation is attacked again. A huge catch 22.
I have to check into a 50 story building in town, while moving trucks outside are allowed to double park, with little, if any, supervision. This is my concern. Are we really focusing our efforts in all the right places? Sometimes I wonder. I mean, terrorism? Surely these fawks want to take us in numbers. But what's from stopping them from blowing up shopping malls, or supermarkets, places where people will always go?
There is a lot of work being done by our intelligence that we do not know about, because a. it is classified, and b. frankly, it would scare the bejesus out of us if we knew of the danger that we have averted due to this intel.
Know your enemy
Certainly I think this is a step in the right direction. I share StevieD's concerns. I ride the T almost daily, and I don't know, you just see this mass of people, and can't help think that something could happen almost any time. We can take so many different extremes on these issues though:
Close borders, deport illegals: YES. This should have been done a long time ago, but it wasn't. Now illegal immigration has run rampant, and there is little we are doing about it. Patrick Buchanan was branded a Nazi and a racist for even considering these ideas....now many don't think it to be so far out there...
I have nothing to hide, so I don't care: Very valid argument. My friend always tell his g/f this in this discussion, and she talks about civil rights etc, but gardenweasel has a very valid point, that these are the same people that will say that we're not doing enough if the nation is attacked again. A huge catch 22.
I have to check into a 50 story building in town, while moving trucks outside are allowed to double park, with little, if any, supervision. This is my concern. Are we really focusing our efforts in all the right places? Sometimes I wonder. I mean, terrorism? Surely these fawks want to take us in numbers. But what's from stopping them from blowing up shopping malls, or supermarkets, places where people will always go?
There is a lot of work being done by our intelligence that we do not know about, because a. it is classified, and b. frankly, it would scare the bejesus out of us if we knew of the danger that we have averted due to this intel.
Auspice,
Totally agree. The horse is leaving the barn in the name of 'fighting terrorism'. Great to see ya around, man!
I/O,
Good post.
Dogs,
No, I don't think that these laws are being enacted specifically to harrass ordinary citizens. And of course the terrorists do not care for the laws. Nor would the terrorists like martial law. I don't really get the point there.
Totally agree about how rare it is to reverse 'special measures/taxes'. It just never happens.
But of course there is no way to 'win' a war on terrorism. Certainly not in any traditional sense. I suppose success will be measured in years between attacks and severity of attacks and location of attacks. While we're tying up our armed forces shooting at ghosts in Iraq, trying to democracize a country that doesn't want that, I have to believe that North Korea is licking it's lips. We're moving a third of our troops that we have in South Korea to Iraq now. That has to give some comfort, if only symbolically, to North Korea.
Totally agree. The horse is leaving the barn in the name of 'fighting terrorism'. Great to see ya around, man!
I/O,
Good post.
Dogs,
No, I don't think that these laws are being enacted specifically to harrass ordinary citizens. And of course the terrorists do not care for the laws. Nor would the terrorists like martial law. I don't really get the point there.
Totally agree about how rare it is to reverse 'special measures/taxes'. It just never happens.
But of course there is no way to 'win' a war on terrorism. Certainly not in any traditional sense. I suppose success will be measured in years between attacks and severity of attacks and location of attacks. While we're tying up our armed forces shooting at ghosts in Iraq, trying to democracize a country that doesn't want that, I have to believe that North Korea is licking it's lips. We're moving a third of our troops that we have in South Korea to Iraq now. That has to give some comfort, if only symbolically, to North Korea.
well
well
i`m gonna remember this thread......i`m going to save it.....and if some a-hole drops a vial of nerve gas in a subway.....or blows up some apartment buildings.......
or blows up several hundred innocents at a mall....
...
i`m gonna pull it back up....just to make sure that everybody is o.k. with what happened....
that their o.k. with their wives,mothers,children,relatives,friends being put in harms way so they don`t have to open their valise on their way to work....
we knew saddam had chemical weapons......and we never verified that they were destoyed...they could have gone to syria...and could have found their way into the wrong hands....
this erosion of freedoms stuff is garbage....where has everybody been the last few years?...
i happened in spain....but it couldn`t happen to us?......
hello???????
well
i`m gonna remember this thread......i`m going to save it.....and if some a-hole drops a vial of nerve gas in a subway.....or blows up some apartment buildings.......
or blows up several hundred innocents at a mall....
...
i`m gonna pull it back up....just to make sure that everybody is o.k. with what happened....
that their o.k. with their wives,mothers,children,relatives,friends being put in harms way so they don`t have to open their valise on their way to work....
we knew saddam had chemical weapons......and we never verified that they were destoyed...they could have gone to syria...and could have found their way into the wrong hands....
this erosion of freedoms stuff is garbage....where has everybody been the last few years?...
i happened in spain....but it couldn`t happen to us?......
hello???????
Last edited:
Instead of infringing on the rights of all Americans they should using racial profiling and targeting those who have promised America harm in the future. America could save hundreds of millions in security and have a much higher sucess rate in apprehending the bad guys.
Kosar I agree that the terrorist have time on there side. I mentioned before there two bigest events were 8 years apart. At least here in America. Over seas of course they have had afew more. Starting way back with the marine barracks in lebanon. We never responed to that. Sent wrong message. Even the president Mr Reagan who we are about to honor. Said that was one of his big mistakes. And it would not happen again. As libya found out. But if they wish to sneak in here and do some damage. Im not sure the patriot act will stop them.
Re: well
Re: well
GW,
If something happens and you bring this thread back to the top, the only point you'd be making is that these so-called 'measures' that we took didn't prevent it. And let's be honest here. The government, to this point and surely for the forseeable future, has had carte blanche to institute anything they want in the name of Homeland Security. There's no reason to get hysterical.
Your implication that by reminding us of this thread after an attack would somehow prove somebody wrong, or that people are unaware of the dangers out there is absurd. How about we use some of these apparently endless billions that we're wasting in Iraq to shore up our intelligence, our ports, our borders...etc.
Insider,
Not a bad idea, but the liberals and the ACLU would scream bloody murder if racial profiling was enacted.
DJV,
Yes, they have all the time in the world because it's a 'war' that's not possible to ever have a final conclusion. The war has been going on for 30 years and will still be going on if the world makes it to the year 2100.
Re: well
gardenweasel said:
GW,
If something happens and you bring this thread back to the top, the only point you'd be making is that these so-called 'measures' that we took didn't prevent it. And let's be honest here. The government, to this point and surely for the forseeable future, has had carte blanche to institute anything they want in the name of Homeland Security. There's no reason to get hysterical.
Your implication that by reminding us of this thread after an attack would somehow prove somebody wrong, or that people are unaware of the dangers out there is absurd. How about we use some of these apparently endless billions that we're wasting in Iraq to shore up our intelligence, our ports, our borders...etc.
Insider,
Not a bad idea, but the liberals and the ACLU would scream bloody murder if racial profiling was enacted.
DJV,
Yes, they have all the time in the world because it's a 'war' that's not possible to ever have a final conclusion. The war has been going on for 30 years and will still be going on if the world makes it to the year 2100.
kosar
kosar
if anybody`s being hysterical,it`s you....nobody`s screaming about their rights being abridged.....the aclu isn`t beating down the courthouse doors,the last time i looked......they`re to busy worrying about the minutiae represented on state seals or whatever..........you are giving us almost verbatim the usual aclu b.s....the sky is falling....
well,it isn`t....
and in my humble opinion,the aclu is wrong 75% of the time anyway...this cross stuff going on in california is absolutely absurd(is it calif.?)...
if the measures being taken are so totalitarian,then it looks like everyone will be up in arms and kerry will be a shoe-in.......
checks and balances,my friend.....
we can agree to disagree.......
kosar
if anybody`s being hysterical,it`s you....nobody`s screaming about their rights being abridged.....the aclu isn`t beating down the courthouse doors,the last time i looked......they`re to busy worrying about the minutiae represented on state seals or whatever..........you are giving us almost verbatim the usual aclu b.s....the sky is falling....
well,it isn`t....
and in my humble opinion,the aclu is wrong 75% of the time anyway...this cross stuff going on in california is absolutely absurd(is it calif.?)...
if the measures being taken are so totalitarian,then it looks like everyone will be up in arms and kerry will be a shoe-in.......
checks and balances,my friend.....
we can agree to disagree.......
Last edited:
Aupice You must have missed the post a while back on those against gambling on-line in congress. It was about 50/50 spit.
Bookies have always been procecuted and players walk. So what is new. If laws are passed it will take both parties to accomplish it.
Bout the only thing we agree on is Kyle is absolute idiot and he has too much time on his hands.
IF internet gambling IS banned in US there are many ways to skin that cat. U.S. citizens are banned at many Euro books--and while I bitch about that, it does not keep me from having action there. If a person can't find ways around it, he shouldn't be gambling in the 1st place.
Bookies have always been procecuted and players walk. So what is new. If laws are passed it will take both parties to accomplish it.
Bout the only thing we agree on is Kyle is absolute idiot and he has too much time on his hands.
IF internet gambling IS banned in US there are many ways to skin that cat. U.S. citizens are banned at many Euro books--and while I bitch about that, it does not keep me from having action there. If a person can't find ways around it, he shouldn't be gambling in the 1st place.
Re: kosar
Re: kosar
Gw,
I totally agree that the ACLU is wrong, or at least goofy caricatures of common sense probably *more* than the 75% of the time that you mentioned. They're totally ridiculous on almost every issue.
Not sure what that has to do with this thread though.
I do not like, or agree with the ACLU very often at all. It seems like they have to come up with goofy crap to justify their existence.
Again, nothing to do with this topic.
You mentioned that the ACLU is not 'beating down the courthouse doors' regarding this.
I find it interesting, since you (as well as I) don't take them very seriously, that you use them as a measure of what should be an issue. You say/strongly imply that since the ACLU isn't making it an issue, then nobody else should. Isn't that giving them a lot of convenient credibility?
Re: kosar
gardenweasel said:
Gw,
I totally agree that the ACLU is wrong, or at least goofy caricatures of common sense probably *more* than the 75% of the time that you mentioned. They're totally ridiculous on almost every issue.
Not sure what that has to do with this thread though.
I do not like, or agree with the ACLU very often at all. It seems like they have to come up with goofy crap to justify their existence.
Again, nothing to do with this topic.
You mentioned that the ACLU is not 'beating down the courthouse doors' regarding this.
I find it interesting, since you (as well as I) don't take them very seriously, that you use them as a measure of what should be an issue. You say/strongly imply that since the ACLU isn't making it an issue, then nobody else should. Isn't that giving them a lot of convenient credibility?
Dogs that Bark
"Bookies have always been procecuted and players walk. So what is new. If laws are passed it will take both parties to accomplish it."
----------
What is new is the law which is being applied to go after bookies. The patriot act gives the government powers that other laws don't in persuing bookies. It's a total miscarriage of the purpose of the law and a blatant lie from Ashcroft prior to it's passage. Prior to the passage of the law, Ashcroft promised it would only be used for terrorist activity. One month after the law passed he was going around the country giving seminars to law enforcement officials about how to use the patriot act to prosecute bookies and other offenses.
________
"IF internet gambling IS banned in US there are many ways to skin that cat. U.S. citizens are banned at many Euro books--and while I bitch about that, it does not keep me from having action there."
____________
There will always be a way of getting down on action if that's your only concern. Getting 'value' in your plays will however be much more difficult. First off, there would be a major shakeup in the offshore landscape. Most of the smaller and medium sized outfits would fold or be absorbed. In the event that a couple of the major offshore shops would fold, it might also set up a chain reaction that might only leave a couple shops. We really don't know but it could get really ugly really fast. If the process happened very quickly, more than likely thousands of 'players' would get stiffed for their post-up funds.
This process could shake-up the offshore landscape so drastically that there would be very little competiton among the remaining books and very little confidence by the players/customers. Again, that's bad news for anyone shopping for value in todays market. If you understand the 'true value' of points in football and basketball and are able to put a numerical value on these points as it relates to your return on investment you understand the advantage of having multiple choices/outs
_________________
"If a person can't find ways around it, he shouldn't be gambling in the 1st place."
___________________
I'll take that to heart and obviously follow your lead.
"Bookies have always been procecuted and players walk. So what is new. If laws are passed it will take both parties to accomplish it."
----------
What is new is the law which is being applied to go after bookies. The patriot act gives the government powers that other laws don't in persuing bookies. It's a total miscarriage of the purpose of the law and a blatant lie from Ashcroft prior to it's passage. Prior to the passage of the law, Ashcroft promised it would only be used for terrorist activity. One month after the law passed he was going around the country giving seminars to law enforcement officials about how to use the patriot act to prosecute bookies and other offenses.
________
"IF internet gambling IS banned in US there are many ways to skin that cat. U.S. citizens are banned at many Euro books--and while I bitch about that, it does not keep me from having action there."
____________
There will always be a way of getting down on action if that's your only concern. Getting 'value' in your plays will however be much more difficult. First off, there would be a major shakeup in the offshore landscape. Most of the smaller and medium sized outfits would fold or be absorbed. In the event that a couple of the major offshore shops would fold, it might also set up a chain reaction that might only leave a couple shops. We really don't know but it could get really ugly really fast. If the process happened very quickly, more than likely thousands of 'players' would get stiffed for their post-up funds.
This process could shake-up the offshore landscape so drastically that there would be very little competiton among the remaining books and very little confidence by the players/customers. Again, that's bad news for anyone shopping for value in todays market. If you understand the 'true value' of points in football and basketball and are able to put a numerical value on these points as it relates to your return on investment you understand the advantage of having multiple choices/outs
_________________
"If a person can't find ways around it, he shouldn't be gambling in the 1st place."
___________________
I'll take that to heart and obviously follow your lead.
Last edited:
the title
the title
of the thread was "sliding further down the slippery slope"......many believe liberal legal advocacy groups like the aclu are the "watchdogs of the slope".....
maybe you don`t agree...o.k.....that`s fine...
""""
*Monitor religious and political institutions and the Internet without any demonstrated suspicion of criminal activity....
i would guess this applies to mosques suspected of funding or aiding terrorists.....nothing to do with me... and they can`t just come in and check your internet activity without a court order....that`s b.s...
*Close once-public immigration hearings and secretly detain hundreds of people without charges. It also has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests. .....
again you are talking about suspected terrorists.....not the average joe.....we are involved in a war with people trying to kill us where we live...on our own soil...
*With a subpoena from a special "spy court," examine bookstores and library records without having to show probable cause that a crime has been committed. .....
see below.....safeguards and congressional oversight..."spy court"...lol
*Allow federal agents to monitor attorney-client conversations in federal prisons. .....
i am not aware of this....any specific examples?...not saying it`s not so...i just can`t find anything on this allegation...
*Jail terrorist suspects without bringing formal charges......
these are terrorist suspects.....i expect them to be detained and questioned vigorously.....no one in my family or circle of friends will ever be one of these people.... nobody that i associate with...
*Search and seize papers and effects without probable cause......
again,congressional and judicial oversight....bi-partisan.....and not true,btw....
hysterics and rhetoric..... labeling the FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT the "spy court",which was created by congress during the carter administration....it`s overseen by congress..
and no papers or effects are seized without a court order...
To begin with, the FBI cannot request any documents or records without first getting judicial permission. That permission must come in the form of an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- a federal court specializing in counterterrorism and international intelligence that was created by Congress during the Carter administration. No judge on that court is going to authorize government agents to spy on a citizen merely because of his reading or web-surfing habits. Why not? Because the law forbids it. Which law? Why, the Patriot Act. "An investigation conducted under this section," Section 215 commands, "shall . . . not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment." In case that isn't clear enough, Section 215 says it twice. And for added protection, it directs the attorney general to tell Congress every six months exactly how many court orders have been requested, and how many of those requests have been granted".....
i seriously doubt that congressional constitutional watchdogs like russ feingold and bob ney(republicans btw) are going to let the administration trample the civil rights of our citizens....not to mention the barbara boxer`s and the ted kennedy`s...
but,back to the main point,we obviously disagree on the extremes to which the government can go to protect the citizenry.....
you are skeptical and suspicious.....i expect them to do everything in their power....and i`m not worried about them snooping....my nose is clean.....
you think my stance is to extreme.....i just believe that the alternative to total vigilance is disaster...
they could search me everyday on my way to work and i`d be fine with it....i`ll just get up 15 minutes earlier...it`s the least i can do....if it saves american lives...or discourages criminals and monsters,i`m in....
here`s hoping that circumstances dictate that i never retrieve this thread....
we can agree to disagree...
but,it disturbs me that we have such short memories....
"those that do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it".....
how true..
the title
of the thread was "sliding further down the slippery slope"......many believe liberal legal advocacy groups like the aclu are the "watchdogs of the slope".....
maybe you don`t agree...o.k.....that`s fine...
""""
*Monitor religious and political institutions and the Internet without any demonstrated suspicion of criminal activity....
i would guess this applies to mosques suspected of funding or aiding terrorists.....nothing to do with me... and they can`t just come in and check your internet activity without a court order....that`s b.s...
*Close once-public immigration hearings and secretly detain hundreds of people without charges. It also has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests. .....
again you are talking about suspected terrorists.....not the average joe.....we are involved in a war with people trying to kill us where we live...on our own soil...
*With a subpoena from a special "spy court," examine bookstores and library records without having to show probable cause that a crime has been committed. .....
see below.....safeguards and congressional oversight..."spy court"...lol
*Allow federal agents to monitor attorney-client conversations in federal prisons. .....
i am not aware of this....any specific examples?...not saying it`s not so...i just can`t find anything on this allegation...
*Jail terrorist suspects without bringing formal charges......
these are terrorist suspects.....i expect them to be detained and questioned vigorously.....no one in my family or circle of friends will ever be one of these people.... nobody that i associate with...
*Search and seize papers and effects without probable cause......
again,congressional and judicial oversight....bi-partisan.....and not true,btw....
hysterics and rhetoric..... labeling the FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT the "spy court",which was created by congress during the carter administration....it`s overseen by congress..
and no papers or effects are seized without a court order...
To begin with, the FBI cannot request any documents or records without first getting judicial permission. That permission must come in the form of an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- a federal court specializing in counterterrorism and international intelligence that was created by Congress during the Carter administration. No judge on that court is going to authorize government agents to spy on a citizen merely because of his reading or web-surfing habits. Why not? Because the law forbids it. Which law? Why, the Patriot Act. "An investigation conducted under this section," Section 215 commands, "shall . . . not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment." In case that isn't clear enough, Section 215 says it twice. And for added protection, it directs the attorney general to tell Congress every six months exactly how many court orders have been requested, and how many of those requests have been granted".....
i seriously doubt that congressional constitutional watchdogs like russ feingold and bob ney(republicans btw) are going to let the administration trample the civil rights of our citizens....not to mention the barbara boxer`s and the ted kennedy`s...
but,back to the main point,we obviously disagree on the extremes to which the government can go to protect the citizenry.....
you are skeptical and suspicious.....i expect them to do everything in their power....and i`m not worried about them snooping....my nose is clean.....
you think my stance is to extreme.....i just believe that the alternative to total vigilance is disaster...
they could search me everyday on my way to work and i`d be fine with it....i`ll just get up 15 minutes earlier...it`s the least i can do....if it saves american lives...or discourages criminals and monsters,i`m in....
here`s hoping that circumstances dictate that i never retrieve this thread....
we can agree to disagree...
but,it disturbs me that we have such short memories....
"those that do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it".....
how true..
Auspice Maybe I misunderstood you.
Are you meaning online sportsbooks being busted or your local bookies? I interpreted it you ment bookies--which I would hope none would would leave tracks via internet.
on some other issues I like prisoners conversation with attorneys being monitored--as well as their mail and phone conversations and no access to computers that has mail options.
Bottom line I am for protecting citizens from criminals not visa versa.
on library's and bookstores--how is that going to hurt Joe citizen.
I assume they are looking into computer access there and not so much books as that is where many terrorist communicate so it can not be traced to them--you might be interested to know that college campus's computer access runs close 2nd on their list.
--and jailing terror suspects without formal charges
I am not familiar with counter terror tactics however one thing I am sure they would do when taking a suspected terrorist is not want to make it common knowledge and take their phone and computer with them in hopes communications between their associates continue and could be tracked back to source.
It would provide very useful measure I would think--much more than than announcing it apon capture and providing him with an attorney to assure him he does not have to say shit--we have rights that will protect him as some advocate.
Are you meaning online sportsbooks being busted or your local bookies? I interpreted it you ment bookies--which I would hope none would would leave tracks via internet.
on some other issues I like prisoners conversation with attorneys being monitored--as well as their mail and phone conversations and no access to computers that has mail options.
Bottom line I am for protecting citizens from criminals not visa versa.
on library's and bookstores--how is that going to hurt Joe citizen.
I assume they are looking into computer access there and not so much books as that is where many terrorist communicate so it can not be traced to them--you might be interested to know that college campus's computer access runs close 2nd on their list.
--and jailing terror suspects without formal charges
I am not familiar with counter terror tactics however one thing I am sure they would do when taking a suspected terrorist is not want to make it common knowledge and take their phone and computer with them in hopes communications between their associates continue and could be tracked back to source.
It would provide very useful measure I would think--much more than than announcing it apon capture and providing him with an attorney to assure him he does not have to say shit--we have rights that will protect him as some advocate.
