Trip Report - SDF-DTW-AMS-BCN-MAD-JFK-CVG-SDF

Sorry, I don't know of a link. I got a copy of Pat II by writing my
congressman's office and requesting it and they mailed it right out.
However, I'm sure it's out there somewhere.

You can try The New American:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/focus/...tact/index.htm I'm not sure if it
contains the complete act or not, but it does speak to the fact that our
freedoms were taken/traded in the name of national security. The
dictatorship is now in place, and communism, which we spent literally
trillions of tax dollars to "fight" is now all of the sudden not such a bad
thing after all.

I'm thinking there must certainly be government sites that contain the
entire act, both 1 and 2 as well but in the interest of not having my
computer marked, I stay out of them.

Good Luck.


"mrtravel" wrote in message
...

None wrote:

You're talking Pat I, what you need to read is Pat II - It will scare
the
living **** out of you if you're a US Citizen. (It is so bad there are
actually cities passing their own local laws AGAINST the Patriot Act to
protect their own citizens).

Can you post the link to the current Patriot II law that is now in
effect????

None wrote:
Sorry, I don't know of a link. I got a copy of Pat II by writing my
congressman's office and requesting it and they mailed it right out.
However, I'm sure it's out there somewhere.

When was it enacted?
What is the bill number?

You are referring to "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003", correct?
After all, you said

************************************************** *******
Ummmmmmm, yes, the OP is absolutely RIGHT. Suspicion is ALL it takes to
have each and every one of your civil rights STRIPPED from you . . .
even if you're a citizen
************************************************** *******

I pointed out that the Patriot Act didn't do this for citizens. You
indicated you meant Patriot II. So, when was this passed?

Binyamin Dissen wrote in message . ..
:While I appreciate your thoughtful take on this, I have to disagree.
:The TSA should never have been formed. Its very existance violates
:the US Fourth Amendment - unreasonable search and seizure.

False.
You have the choice to refuse the search and not fly.
Feel free to argue on other grounds, such as lack of effectiveness, etc. but
there aren't any constitutional grounds.

Sounds like you don't want to have this discussion yet again, so this
is for the benefit of anyone else who might be interested.

Yes, you 'have the choice to not fly'. So let's take that logic a bit
farther.

You have the right to choose not to drive. You don't have to drive
anywhere. If you do choose to drive, you give the state certain legal
options which it would otherwise not have. For example, you give the
state the right to pull you over and do a 'stop and frisk', based on
'probable cause'.

But you do not give the state the right to search the locked trunk of
your car by simply driving on public roads. If they do it without
probable cause or a warrant, they've violated your Fourth Amendment
rights.

How is flying different?

I maintain that it is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment for
the TSA to be searching passengers and their luggage.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Binyamin Dissen wrote in message . ..
And you can refuse to answer.
No probable cause for arrest.

You haven't spent much time around cops. There is *always* pc for an
arrest. If nothing else, they can call it 'creating a public
disturbance' or whatever the local equivalent is. You'll probably
beat it in court - if the cop even shows up for your trial. But you
still go to the cross-bar hotel for the night or weekend.

We used to call it 'felony contempt of cop'. Short answer - make a
cop mad, he'll find a way to arrest you, no matter if it sticks or
not.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

"None" wrote in message link.net...
If you're dumb enough to get into a security check point line to begin with,
knowing full well you're going to buck the system and refuse the search,
then you deserve everything you get, including the full-fisted rectal exam!

We all deserve it, kid.

WHEN YOU BUY AN AIRLINE TICKET you are bound by their contract just as much
as they are bound to you - you agree to their security proceedures, you
agree to submit yourself and your belongings that you are taking with you to
a security screening process conducted by the TSA. Previously, those
searches were done by privately run companies. There is no difference.

What you mean, perhaps, is that there is no practical difference.
Yes, a search is a search, no matter who does it. But there is a
large prohibition in the US Constitution, specifically Amendment IV,
which forbids the government from performing 'unreasonable searches
and seizures'. The real question is - what is 'reasonable'? I
maintain that what the TSA does is not reasonable, and therefore is
not constitutional.

If we follow your logic - we can also say that your acceptance of a
driver's license binds you to a contract that allows the government to
pull you over and search your vehicle any time it wants, for no reason
at all. And government military troops can burst into your house and
inspect your garage, etc. It never ends once you open the door to
implied contracts and government intervention.

I can't stand to hear constitutional arguments regarding air transportation.

Then may I respectfully suggest, sir, that you are an idiot at best,
and an enemy of freedom at worst. There is nothing more important
right now (or should be) to a US citizen. When our freedoms are
directly threatened and even curtailed (as you point out quite well
below), it should be the highest priority, before the economy, before
the war in Iraq, before elections, before sitting our fat butts down
in front of the tube to watch the latest 'reality TV show'.

First, your constitutional rights were put on hold at best by the Shrub
after 9/11 created the patriot act.

Yes. There have been other incursions as well, but this one was so
blatant that even some border-line simpletons have caught on. Before
that, anyone who noticed our rights being stripped away was a nutcase.
Like me. Hate to say "I told ya so," but well, I told ya so.

You can now be detained indefinitely
without ever being charged with anything.

Yes.

Therefore, I suggest that if you
get in line for airport security checks, that you keep your big dissenting
yap closed or suffer the consequences.

Crap. If no one steps up and "opens their big yaps," then indeed we
all deserve what we get. Step one is to complain, often and loudly,
about this abuse of our rights. Step two involves guns and violence,
as suggested by Thomas Jefferson with regard to the "Tree of Liberty."

I won't stop yapping, and if anyone is made sick by that, well, too
damned bad. You can thank me later, when you come to your senses. If
I'm the first one carried off to the new Gulag for running my mouth,
so be it. That's why I use my real name and e-mail address online.
I'm not running or hiding.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

(Justin) wrote in message . com...
Ah - the stupidest poster here is back.

Indeed you are. Welcome back, Mr. T. How's it going collecting those
stolen passwords for porno websites?

The TSA isn't "going out of business" in 2004. Their contract expires
in November of 2004, and the individual airport has the choice to
renew it.

I believe I said that.

Already (1 year in advance) 50% of airports said they would
renew it.

Signed contracts? No. Just what they 'said'. And I'd like to see
the cite for even that much.

Why? Because if they don't they are responcible for
security and 75% of the costs (with TSA chipping in the other 25%).

Money is a powerful motivating factor, obviously. But the airports
and the airlines don't much like the TSA, and will exert power to get
them gone when they have the opportunity.

So they are going to obviously save the money, and keep with whats
working.

How exactly is what the TSA does 'working'? All I see is a massive
boondoggle.

The rest of your post was just stupid and boring, so I won't even
bother to respond to it.

Fair enough. Go back to your poker tables - you're doing so well at
it.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

(me) wrote in message . com...
The problem is liability. As long as TSA is there, you basically
can't hold the airlines or the airport authorities liable for anything.

Good point - plausible deniability.

It's why the airlines begged the gubberment to take it over in the
first place.

I don't believe they did that.

I have no doubt that many airport authorities would
love to dump the TSA. However, unless they believe that they have
protection from risk, I'm finding it hard to believe that they will
dump them.

I guess time will tell. It will be interesting to see what happens.
Personally, I'd love to see the brownshirts, er, I mean whitshirts out
on their butts. Relearning how to say "Would you like fries with
that, sir?"

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

mrtravel wrote:
I think you misread the Patriot Act..
As bad as it is, it doesn't deny the legal protections, such as right to
consult with an attorney, etc to citizens. It does give the ability to
detain NON CITIZENS for up to 7 days in certain cases.

Tell that to the thousands who were arrested without charge and without access
to legal system even though they were american citizens (including some born
in the USA), just because they were of arab origin.

A country's police and legal system should work the same for every human
inside that country. Your constitution does not need to give visitors free
healtcare or education, but it should afford them the same legal rights.

Mr Peyronnie wrote:

mrtravel wrote:

I think you misread the Patriot Act..
As bad as it is, it doesn't deny the legal protections, such as right to
consult with an attorney, etc to citizens. It does give the ability to
detain NON CITIZENS for up to 7 days in certain cases.


Tell that to the thousands who were arrested without charge and without access
to legal system even though they were american citizens (including some born
in the USA), just because they were of arab origin.


Please explain what this has to do with my ocmments on the Patriot Act?
Where does the Patriot Act indicate an American citizen can be held for
up to 7 days without being charged????? It doesn't..

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 23:57:17 GMT, mrtravel wrote:


None wrote:

You're talking Pat I, what you need to read is Pat II - It will scare the
living **** out of you if you're a US Citizen. (It is so bad there are
actually cities passing their own local laws AGAINST the Patriot Act to
protect their own citizens).

Can you post the link to the current Patriot II law that is now in
effect????

http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtawe...0703_Doc_1.pdf
....A clean house is a sign of a broken computer.