RadioBanter - You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)

- - You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life. (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/102577-youll-probably-never-have-use-cw-save-life.html)

slow code stalker at large

Slow Code wrote:

slow code stalker at large

The "Patriot Amendment"

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Anyone in a position of authority, power, or decision making needs
safeguards. History has shown this to be true many times.

People who behave ethically at all times aren't bothered by safeguards.

So why are Democrats so bothered by the Patriot Amendment?

If by the "Patriot Amendment" you mean this:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Presiden..._amendment_act

the answer is that it looks like an attempt by the Current Occupant to
remove safeguards.

And it's not just Democrats:

Quoting Wikinews:

Sen. Lindsey Graham voiced concern over the way national security is
being used as a catch all phrase in this and a number of other signing
statements, saying "If you take this to its logical conclusion, because
during war the commander in chief has an obligation to protect us, any
statute on the books could be summarily waived,"

Sen. Graham is a Republican from South Carolina.

Yes, Sen Graham is a Republican from South Carolina. Are you from
South Carolina? Does Sen Graham represent you?

I'm not from SC. But that's not the point.

The question you asked was why *Democrats* are/were so bothered by the
Patriot Amendment. Which implies that Republicans aren't bothered by
it, and that it's a partisan thing, with the usual spin of "Party A is
good, Party B is bad". The fact that there are Republicans who are
concerned demonstrates that ity's not so simple.

Guess where Sen. Arlen Specter is from....

And GW could have declared martial law on 9/11.

Could he? For the whole country or just parts of it?

Maybe in theory. In practice, I don't know of any time in the history
of the Republic where nationwide or even widespread martial law was
imposed. The use of such power has always been very limited.

To declare martial law for the whole country in the wake of 9/11 would
have been an overreaction.

He's trying to go the
least disruptive route for the most people.

That's one way to look at it. Here's another:

If someone in power tries to make radical changes all at once, there is
usually strong opposition. But if the changes are made in stages, a
little at a time, they can often be packaged in such a way as to result
in an overall change that is much more radical. A little here, a little
there, and pretty soon an awful lot is gone.

Most people aren't terrorists.

Very true.

Since the birth of this nation, the US Post Office has been looking at
the addressee and the return address on every piece of first class mail
that they've handled. The government even goes so far as to walk right
up to the addressee, even if private property, and give them their
message.

And if something suspicious shows up in the US Mail, the Postmaster is
allowed to open it. The sender and the receiver are both subject to
investigation.

The US Post Office is also a government-run organization - it's not
private industry. Reading the addresses is a practical necessity, in
order to know where to send the mail.

Today, under the "Patriot Act," the US Government gets to see the
originating phone number, the destination phone number, and if there
are suspicious trigger words, the contents of the message may be seen.

I thought the discussion was about the "Patriot Amendment".

I think the two systems of communications should share similar risks of
eavesdropping. Why shouldn't it be so?

"Eavesdropping"? I would call it "monitoring". And I agree that if a
communication of *any* kind - written, "wired", radio, etc. - is
suspicious, the govt. should be able to monitor it.

At the same time, there need to be safeguards against misuse of the
monitoring. Checks and balances.

You may not remember the Nixon Administration, but I sure do. There
were things done which were clear misuse of power, in order to insure
that RMN got elected and re-elected. There were serious attempts to
hide it under the umbrella of "national security".

The truly odd thing was that RMN did not need any of those 'dirty
tricks' to get elected or re-elected.

If you are choosing to afford terrorists equal protection, I think
you're nuts.

The problem isn't terrorists getting equal protection. If they're
really terrorists, they should be dealt with as needed.

The problem is that while most people aren't terrorists, we all get
looked at as if we are. And the safeguards start disappearing, one by
one, always for "national security". Then there's no equal protection
for anyone.

Is that what the USA is about?

The "Patriot Amendment"

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Anyone in a position of authority, power, or decision making needs
safeguards. History has shown this to be true many times.

People who behave ethically at all times aren't bothered by safeguards.

So why are Democrats so bothered by the Patriot Amendment?

If by the "Patriot Amendment" you mean this:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Presiden..._amendment_act

the answer is that it looks like an attempt by the Current Occupant to
remove safeguards.

And it's not just Democrats:

Quoting Wikinews:

Sen. Lindsey Graham voiced concern over the way national security is
being used as a catch all phrase in this and a number of other signing
statements, saying "If you take this to its logical conclusion, because
during war the commander in chief has an obligation to protect us, any
statute on the books could be summarily waived,"

Sen. Graham is a Republican from South Carolina.

Yes, Sen Graham is a Republican from South Carolina. Are you from
South Carolina? Does Sen Graham represent you?

I'm not from SC. But that's not the point.

You're not from SC, Sen Graham doesn't represent you, and Len is not an
amateur. But that's not the point.

The question you asked was why *Democrats* are/were so bothered by the
Patriot Amendment.

Which you didn't answer.

Instead you bring up the name of a representative who is from a
district that you don't live in and who doesn't represent you.

Which implies that Republicans aren't bothered by
it, and that it's a partisan thing, with the usual spin of "Party A is
good, Party B is bad". The fact that there are Republicans who are
concerned demonstrates that ity's not so simple.

By and large, democrats are told by their leadership that the
republicans are up to something nefarious.

Guess where Sen. Arlen Specter is from....

Not Rochester NY.

And GW could have declared martial law on 9/11.

Could he? For the whole country or just parts of it?

Maybe in theory. In practice, I don't know of any time in the history
of the Republic where nationwide or even widespread martial law was
imposed. The use of such power has always been very limited.

To declare martial law for the whole country in the wake of 9/11 would
have been an overreaction.

And to ignore the fact that there are jihadists out there trying to
kill Americans on American soil would be an underreaction.

He's trying to go the
least disruptive route for the most people.

That's one way to look at it. Here's another:

If someone in power tries to make radical changes all at once, there is
usually strong opposition. But if the changes are made in stages, a
little at a time, they can often be packaged in such a way as to result
in an overall change that is much more radical. A little here, a little
there, and pretty soon an awful lot is gone.

Such as Roosevelt's Social Security Administration? The next thing you
know, your social security number is needed to open a bank account, to
get a driver's license, or purchase a firearm. What does any of that
have to do with FICA taxes? What does it have to do with infants?

Most people aren't terrorists.

Very true.

We've found common ground!!!

Since the birth of this nation, the US Post Office has been looking at
the addressee and the return address on every piece of first class mail
that they've handled. The government even goes so far as to walk right
up to the addressee, even if private property, and give them their
message.

And if something suspicious shows up in the US Mail, the Postmaster is
allowed to open it. The sender and the receiver are both subject to
investigation.

The US Post Office is also a government-run organization - it's not
private industry. Reading the addresses is a practical necessity, in
order to know where to send the mail.

You might be on to something.

Today, under the "Patriot Act," the US Government gets to see the
originating phone number, the destination phone number, and if there
are suspicious trigger words, the contents of the message may be seen.

I thought the discussion was about the "Patriot Amendment".

As you wish.

I think the two systems of communications should share similar risks of
eavesdropping. Why shouldn't it be so?

"Eavesdropping"? I would call it "monitoring". And I agree that if a
communication of *any* kind - written, "wired", radio, etc. - is
suspicious, the govt. should be able to monitor it.

Then what's this all about???

At the same time, there need to be safeguards against misuse of the
monitoring. Checks and balances.

You may not remember the Nixon Administration, but I sure do.

During my teen years there was little on TV except the Vietnam War, the
Protests to the Vietnam War, and the Watergate Trial.

There
were things done which were clear misuse of power, in order to insure
that RMN got elected and re-elected. There were serious attempts to
hide it under the umbrella of "national security".

Breaking in to an office building is very different than delivering
mail or "monitoring" where phone calls are coming from and going to.

The truly odd thing was that RMN did not need any of those 'dirty
tricks' to get elected or re-elected.

The democrats absolutely need "dirty" campaign ads to get elected.

How many children died from the school lunch program as the democrats
claimed would die in their ads?

If you are choosing to afford terrorists equal protection, I think
you're nuts.

The problem isn't terrorists getting equal protection. If they're
really terrorists, they should be dealt with as needed.

How is that? Should they get their Miranda Rights? Should they get
the very best army of attorneys that a Saudi Prince can afford?

The problem is that while most people aren't terrorists, we all get
looked at as if we are.

The democrats set-up the legal system so that we can't put the most law
enforcement resources against the most likely suspects. So we have to
waste billions having women drink suspicious fluids (breast milk) found
in baby bottles when travelling with their infants, and monitoring
-all- phone calls and not just some.

What is needed is something called "profiling" which the dems have
outlawed.

And the safeguards start disappearing, one by
one, always for "national security". Then there's no equal protection
for anyone.

Dems have America's hands tied with the "racist profiling" conundrum.
Thanks.

Is that what the USA is about?

So ramp up your propaganda machine and vote them out.

off topic bs rom Jim

The "Patriot Amendment"

From: on Sun, Sep 17 2006 4:15 am

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Anyone in a position of authority, power, or decision making needs
safeguards. History has shown this to be true many times.

People who behave ethically at all times aren't bothered by safeguards.

[yawn] "Jimmy explains Politics" the title of this treatise?

If someone in power tries to make radical changes all at once, there is
usually strong opposition. But if the changes are made in stages, a
little at a time, they can often be packaged in such a way as to result
in an overall change that is much more radical.

Isn't that how the ARRL managed to get the final version of
Incestuous Licensing plan in US amateur radio regulations?

A little here, a little
there, and pretty soon an awful lot is gone.

"At first the FCC took away 20 wpm testing...and the coders
couldn't do anything..." [in 2000, six years ago] :-)

Are you Pastor Niemuller?

Most people aren't terrorists.

Very true.

Except for the no-code-test advocates. Those threaten the
existance of amateur radio AS THE PRO-CODERS KNOW IT!"

Ergo, to pro-coders the no-code-test advocates are
"terrorists?"

I thought the discussion was about the "Patriot Amendment".

I thought this whole newsgroup was about AMATEUR RADIO
POLICY?!?

You may not remember the Nixon Administration, but I sure do.

Bully for Jimmy. yawn

How did Richard Milhous Nixon affect US amateur radio?

Answer: Not a helluva lot...

There
were things done which were clear misuse of power, in order to insure
that RMN got elected and re-elected. There were serious attempts to
hide it under the umbrella of "national security".

There were things done by the ARRL which were a clear misuse
of power...in order to insure membership growth. They had
serious attempts to hide it under the patriotic bunting of
a "representative of amateur radio."

Of course the membership only got so far and remains at less
than a quarter of all licensed US radio amateurs.

The truly odd thing was that RMN did not need any of those 'dirty
tricks' to get elected or re-elected.

"RMN" failed to get elected as California's Governor.

The problem isn't terrorists getting equal protection. If they're
really terrorists, they should be dealt with as needed.

No-code-test advocates are NOT 'terrorists' but you feel
that they should be "dealt with as needed."

The problem is that while most people aren't terrorists, we all get
looked at as if we are.

Why do you feel guilty?

And the safeguards start disappearing, one by
one, always for "national security".

Yes, the amateur radio code test has now dropped to 5 wpm
for all license classes.

Is your "amateur radio security" threatened?

Then there's no equal protection for anyone.

In amateur radio there is NO equality...to get privileges
operating below 30 MHz, one must still take a manual
telegraphy test...even though the FCC as long since
dropped any mandatory manual radiotelegraphy operation.

Is that what the USA is about?

Isn't (in your mind) USA amateur radio all about telegraphy?

Beep, beep,