The Patriot Act: Boon or Boondoggle?

Foxfyre wrote:

Is it enough that abuses COULD occur under The Patriot Act to scrap it?

We should look more at HOW LIKELY abuses are, rather than COULD they occur.

For me, I think the risk of abuse, and the damage that would be caused by such abuse, is higher than the rewards.

The parts that really bother me are the lack of judicial oversight, and the secrecy clauses.

Meanwhile, drug dealing, murders, etc. continue unabated. Can we have some perspective, please, on what is really dangerous to our society?

0 Replies

Apparently the terrorists have won this battle. We are rapidly becoming a nation based on fear of the paranoid type in which we willingly cede personal freedoms given by the constitution in order to protect ourselves from ourselves. Keep a close eye on your neighbor he/she might be a liberal giving aid and comfort to a terrorist and when they take your neighbor away you can rest easy saying to yourself, "they didn't come for me."

0 Replies

Yep. With McGentrix leading the charge to hand over his civil liberties.

Good ol' Bush. "Better be good kids, and give me what I want, or the bad OSAMA BIN LADEN will get you!"

0 Replies

I must be a fortunate son as I see they are taking DrewDad away this time instead of me (I put a "shoot liberals on sight, they might be a terrorist" sticker on my truck)

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Apparently the terrorists have won this battle. We are rapidly becoming a nation based on fear of the paranoid type in which we willingly cede personal freedoms given by the constitution in order to protect ourselves from ourselves. Keep a close eye on your neighbor he/she might be a liberal giving aid and comfort to a terrorist and when they take your neighbor away you can rest easy saying to yourself, "they didn't come for me."

The only ones that seem to be afraid and paranoid though are liberals. I know that I have no reason to fear the FBI as I have no dealings with terrorists. If you have no dealings with terrorists, you have nothing to fear either. But, for some reason, that doesn't seem to cut it with the fear mongering left.

0 Replies

Quote:

The only ones that seem to be afraid and paranoid though are liberals

This may very well be true although I would heistate just an iota on the "paranoid" bit due to the recent history in the US of A it has generally been liberals who have suffered the bane of rightwing victimizing especially for the last 100 or so years.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Quote:
The only ones that seem to be afraid and paranoid though are liberals

This may very well be true although I would heistate just an iota on the "paranoid" bit due to the recent history in the US of A it has generally been liberals who have suffered the bane of rightwing victimizing especially for the last 100 or so years.

How so?

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Quote:
Many of the most constitutionally offensive measures in the Act are not limited to terrorist offenses, but apply to any criminal activity. In fact, some of the new police powers could be applied even to those engaging in peaceful protest against government policies. The bill as written defines terrorism as acts intended "to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." Under this broad definition, a scuffle at an otherwise peaceful pro-life demonstration might subject attendees to a federal investigation. We have seen abuses of law enforcement authority in the past to harass individuals or organizations with unpopular political views. Congress has given future administrations a tool to investigate pro-life or gun rights organizations on the grounds that fringe members of such groups advocate violence.

The PATRIOT Act waters down the Fourth Amendment by expanding the federal government's ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight. The requirement of a search warrant and probable cause strikes a balance between effective law enforcement and civil liberties. Any attempt to dilute the warrant requirement threatens innocent citizens with a loss of their liberty. This is particularly true of provisions that allow for issuance of nationwide search warrants that are not specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight.
conservative republican congresman from Texas Ron Paul

Sounds kinda liberal to me....

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
Quote:
Many of the most constitutionally offensive measures in the Act are not limited to terrorist offenses, but apply to any criminal activity. In fact, some of the new police powers could be applied even to those engaging in peaceful protest against government policies. The bill as written defines terrorism as acts intended "to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." Under this broad definition, a scuffle at an otherwise peaceful pro-life demonstration might subject attendees to a federal investigation. We have seen abuses of law enforcement authority in the past to harass individuals or organizations with unpopular political views. Congress has given future administrations a tool to investigate pro-life or gun rights organizations on the grounds that fringe members of such groups advocate violence.

The PATRIOT Act waters down the Fourth Amendment by expanding the federal government's ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight. The requirement of a search warrant and probable cause strikes a balance between effective law enforcement and civil liberties. Any attempt to dilute the warrant requirement threatens innocent citizens with a loss of their liberty. This is particularly true of provisions that allow for issuance of nationwide search warrants that are not specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight.
conservative republican congresman from Texas Ron Paul

Sounds kinda liberal to me....

Oh, wait. He's a Republican in Texas. He is a liberal.

0 Replies

Yes Ron Paul was one of the three Republicans to oppose the Patriot Act going in and he has remained consistent in that view. He is one of the more liberal Republicans being more libertarian than Republican.

0 Replies

Er... I don't know how you get liberal from Libertarian. They may sound alike, but I assure you that they are quite different philosophies.

0 Replies

Ron Paul is a liberal! I want to see his face when he hears this.

0 Replies

Why are you calling him a liberal Dys.?

0 Replies

this quote from Fox certainly leaves me puzzled;

Quote:

He is one of the more liberal Republicans being more libertarian than Republican.

My general understanding is that Libertarians are more conservative than ordinary republicans.

0 Replies

Remember that many of the membership and staff of the ACLU consider themselves Libertarian, as does Ron Paul. Libertarians can be quite conservative in the mode of Walter Williams, myself, et al or quite liberal. Typically Libertarians are generally more conservative fiscally and more liberal socially. Ron Paul's voting record is generally opposed to most Republican initiative on anything, thus earning him a reputation as one of the more liberal members of the GOP delegation.

Excerpted from Wikipedia:

Ronald Ernest Paul, MD (born August 20, 1935) is a member of the United States House of Representatives from Texas's 14th congressional district (map). First elected in 1976, he served through 1984, and then returned to Congress in 1996.

Elected as a Republican, he professes a limited government libertarian ideology, which frequently conflicts with Republicans and most other Congressional colleagues. His regular votes against almost all proposals for government spending, initiatives, or taxes, and his frequent dissents in otherwise unanimous votes have earned him the nickname "Dr. No".. . .

. . . . .Leaders of the Texan Republican Party made similar efforts to defeat him in 1998, but he again won the primary and the election. The Republican congressional leadership then agreed to a compromise: Paul votes with the Republicans on procedural matters and remains nominally Republican in exchange for the committee assignments normally due according to his seniority. This is arguably similar to the deal that Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont has with the Democratic Party (though Jeffords was elected as a Republican and is now officially independent). He was convincingly re-elected in 2000 and 2002. He was elected unopposed in 2004 to his ninth term in the Congress. He is a member of the Republican Liberty Caucus.

0 Replies

So Mr Paul by being very conservative is labled a liberal republican. Interesting logic. the gist of the story seems to be that since Ron Paul often votes against party lines he must be liberal rather than conservative whereas I would regard Mr Paul as being an actual conservative having values that are bigger than the republican party. I have long recognised that the dems have some serious problems with actual liberals that vote outside party lines but I had not, until now, realized that the Repubs have the same difficulty. It appears that philosophical integrity is a bane to both of the primary parties.

0 Replies

When Ron Paul votes with Nancy Pelosi 70% of the time, he's a liberal. I didn't say he didn't have values or principles. But he is what he is.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

The only ones that seem to be afraid and paranoid though are liberals.

Brandon and Baldimo are liberal?

Kewl. I didn't know any before.

~~~~~~~~

The whole redefinition of libertarian going on in this thread is intriguing. My poli sci profs would be, to be polite, puzzled about where people get their knowledge.

0 Replies

I should say re Congressman Paul that he is quite conservative when it comes to taxes--he opposes almost all of them--and he opposes all forms of gun control. He is 100% libertarian when it comes to constitutional issues and I believe it is these three things that gives him a 'conservative' image and has earned him re-election several times now. I do believe he is highly principled as he is no flipflopper on anything that I'm aware of.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I should say re Congressman Paul that is quite conservative when it comes to taxes--he opposes almost all of them--and gun control. He is 100% libertarian when it comes to constitutional issues and I believe it is these three things that gives him a 'conservative' image and has earned him re-election several times now. I do believe he is highly principled as he is no flipflopper on anything that I'm aware of.

All of which point to the problem he has "fitting in" with the Republican party.

0 Replies

The Patriot Act: Boon or Boondoggle?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know