Officials Urge Renewal of Patriot Act

I hope it gets approved in its current form. Until the parts of it people don't like can be proven to be abused then leave it how it is. It has been working and is useable in its current form. Just because it makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean it's illegal.

0 Replies

The ACLU is correctly concerned about the possibility of abuse. Do the words with liberty and justice for all sound familiar? I like those words and they really sound like they're lawful.

0 Replies

bobsmythhawk wrote:

The ACLU is correctly concerned about the possibility of abuse. Do the words with liberty and justice for all sound familiar? I like those words and they really sound like they're lawful.

You can't guess about something that hasn't happened. We guess that there is going to be another terrorist attack and the admin gets blamed for fear mongering, but on the other hand the libs always complain that we aren't any safer since the Iraq war. If the patriot act is working and keeping people from attacking, why are you going to cripple something that is working? If you hinder the act, and something does happen who are you going to blame? You are going to blame the admin, not the ACLU, not the politicians who removed the Patriot Act, and not yourselves for not letting the govt do it's job of protection. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

These people have been looking like hawks at a rabbit waiting for the govt to screw up and it hasn't happened. I say give the govt the benefit of the doubt, if they screw up then revoke it.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

bobsmythhawk wrote:
The ACLU is correctly concerned about the possibility of abuse. Do the words with liberty and justice for all sound familiar? I like those words and they really sound like they're lawful.

You can't guess about something that hasn't happened. We guess that there is going to be another terrorist attack and the admin gets blamed for fear mongering, but on the other hand the libs always complain that we aren't any safer since the Iraq war.
We aren't any safer...

If the patriot act is working and keeping people from attacking, why are you going to cripple something that is working?
How is it working? As opposed to enhanced LAW ENFORCEMENT, which is being cut on the local level.

If you hinder the act, and something does happen who are you going to blame? You are going to blame the admin, not the ACLU, not the politicians who removed the Patriot Act, and not yourselves for not letting the govt do it's job of protection. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
???

These people have been looking like hawks at a rabbit waiting for the govt to screw up and it hasn't happened. I say give the govt the benefit of the doubt, if they screw up then revoke it.

The "government" has screwed up quite enough, thank you very much. The Terri Shiavo fiasco was yet the latest lovely example of a Republican neoconservative judicial powergrab. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
bobsmythhawk wrote:
The ACLU is correctly concerned about the possibility of abuse. Do the words with liberty and justice for all sound familiar? I like those words and they really sound like they're lawful.

You can't guess about something that hasn't happened. We guess that there is going to be another terrorist attack and the admin gets blamed for fear mongering, but on the other hand the libs always complain that we aren't any safer since the Iraq war.
We aren't any safer...

If the patriot act is working and keeping people from attacking, why are you going to cripple something that is working?
How is it working? As opposed to enhanced LAW ENFORCEMENT, which is being cut on the local level.

If you hinder the act, and something does happen who are you going to blame? You are going to blame the admin, not the ACLU, not the politicians who removed the Patriot Act, and not yourselves for not letting the govt do it's job of protection. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
???

These people have been looking like hawks at a rabbit waiting for the govt to screw up and it hasn't happened. I say give the govt the benefit of the doubt, if they screw up then revoke it.

The "government" has screwed up quite enough, thank you very much. The Terri Shiavo fiasco was yet the latest lovely example of a Republican neoconservative judicial powergrab.

That has nothing to do with the Patriot act. I didn't like the GOP getting involved, but they did in fact have the right to assign a judical review of the case. Besides we all knew that it wasn't going to be over turned. I'm with you on the Shiavo case, but this isn't the proper place for that discussion.

0 Replies

The idea that the patriot act has protected America from future terrorism is similar to someone being struck by lightning once and buying a lucky charm. The lucky charm must work because he's never struck by lightning again.

I'm not saying that it can't work, but terrorist attacks on the US are rarer than lightning strikes so if one doesn't occur it doesn't necessarily mean anything factual one way or the other.

However I'm curious about one thing. I'm not an American so I'm not overly familiar with the document in question. What about the document is such a problem? Most of the things I've heard of sound like good ideas for law enforcement.

Could someone from the anti-patriot act camp tell me why they disagree with it?

0 Replies

The patriot act protecting us? Hardly.

How about closing our borders, protecting our shipping ports, or protecting vital chemical and nuclear plants? None of that has been done.

The patriot act is the most decievingly-named bill to pass Congress in forever. It's not to stop terrorists; its' purpose is to stop Americans.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The patriot act protecting us? Hardly.

How about closing our borders, protecting our shipping ports, or protecting vital chemical and nuclear plants? None of that has been done.

The patriot act is the most decievingly-named bill to pass Congress in forever. It's not to stop terrorists; its' purpose is to stop Americans.

Cycloptichorn

With no proof you are soundling like a cheap sound bite.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

That has nothing to do with the Patriot act. I didn't like the GOP getting involved, but they did in fact have the right to assign a judical review of the case. Besides we all knew that it wasn't going to be over turned. I'm with you on the Shiavo case, but this isn't the proper place for that discussion.

It IS the proper place because it all deals with government intrusion in our private lives. I would imagine the American populace is going to have a different take now on the Patriot Act after the Terri Shiavo fiasco. What that is remains to be seen...

And, as you've claimed that Cycloptichorn doesn't have proof, I suppose that you DO have proof that the Patriot Act IS working?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The patriot act protecting us? Hardly.

How about closing our borders, protecting our shipping ports, or protecting vital chemical and nuclear plants? None of that has been done.

The patriot act is the most decievingly-named bill to pass Congress in forever. It's not to stop terrorists; its' purpose is to stop Americans.

Cycloptichorn

A damn good point. If we are safer, than why are vigilantes in Arizona heading down to the border? If we are safer, then why are there articles still coming out criticizing what ISN'T being done to protect our borders, our chemical and nuclear plants, our ports and harbors, and our commercial airline industry?

0 Replies

How about our food supply. Dangerously unprotected.

I mean, how hard is it for an AQ agent to book a flight to south America, drive up and get smuggled into America? The border lets through a tremendous number of people and AQ certainly isn't short on cash for bribes and fake ID.

Amazingingly, nothing is being done about critical areas of national security. If this is a War on Terror, Dookiestix, then we're not protecting our home base at all from the enemy......

It almost makes one wonder if the people up at the top just aren't worried about terrorists anymore;

Quote:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

6 short months later

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02

Think they know something they aren't telling us?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

How about our food supply. Dangerously unprotected.

I mean, how hard is it for an AQ agent to book a flight to south America, drive up and get smuggled into America? The border lets through a tremendous number of people and AQ certainly isn't short on cash for bribes and fake ID.

Amazingingly, nothing is being done about critical areas of national security. If this is a War on Terror, Dookiestix, then we're not protecting our home base at all from the enemy......

It almost makes one wonder if the people up at the top just aren't worried about terrorists anymore;

Quote:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

6 short months later

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02

Think they know something they aren't telling us?

Cycloptichorn

If it makes you feel better, I have a friend who just returned from Afghanistan who was involved in the hunt for OBL. We are still looking, just becuase it isn't talked about all the time doesn't mean it isn't going on.

0 Replies

Quote:

If it makes you feel better, I have a friend who just returned from Afghanistan who was involved in the hunt for OBL. We are still looking, just becuase it isn't talked about all the time doesn't mean it isn't going on.

Why would that make me feel better?

The fact that some troops are still out 'looking' for OBL doesn't change the fact at all that our leaders do not seem to be concerned with finding him at all. In just 6 months this change happened.

How does someone go from being public enemy number one, to 'not a concern,' in just 6 months? The answer: they weren't a big concern in the first place.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

However I'm curious about one thing. I'm not an American so I'm not overly familiar with the document in question. What about the document is such a problem? Most of the things I've heard of sound like good ideas for law enforcement.

Section 215

Basically the government can request sales records of any business for any reason under the guise of searching for terrorism. And it is a crime for said businesses to disclose that their records were searched. A specific result of this section is that the government can determine "suspected terrorists" based on their library records. Big brother anyone?

An unintended consequence of this is that many libraries have stopped tracking who checked out what beyond the currently checked out books. So even if the government had a legitimate case and obtained a search warrant w/o resorting to the patriot act...the records probably don't exist anymore...

Section 219

Basically "terrorists related" trials can be moved to a secret trial where it is untouchable from public analysis and cannot be appealed. I thought taking people off the street and punishing them in secret trials was something that only went on in crazy dictatorship countries. Possibly not.

These are only two of the most glaring. If you have heard the story about how this was passed in the first place you would find that this was a hurried flawed idea from the start. Many of the Republicans that signed off on this thing want specific clauses like these overturned or brought back to reality.

Quote:

How does someone go from being public enemy number one, to 'not a concern,' in just 6 months? The answer: they weren't a big concern in the first place.

I would agree with this. If this administration was focused on capturing Bin Laden from the start then they would not have let the Bin Laden family members leave the country (on the president's press jet no less) without questioning them. Osama was only painted as the big bad in the press by the Bush admin when he wanted to initiate war in Iraq.

0 Replies

Officials Urge Renewal of Patriot Act

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know