[bg]

I'm calling those who voted against it and thanking them. >
http://www.yahoo.com/_ylh=X3oDMTEybGQxYTN0BF9TAzI3MTYxNDkEdGVzdAN2Mjk4BHRtcGwDdjI5OC1jc3M-/s/265270

[Lone_Gunman]

How can the President get any work down with these obstructionists in the Senate trying to defend constitutional rights?

[Sindawe]

I've got Fox News playing in the background, talking about the "Patriot Act". One womand just stated

"If it keeps me safe, I have nothing to hide."

Thunderous applause by the studio audience.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Anybody know where I can book passage off planet? One of the wild colony worlds would be nice.

If we had any....

[jbear6]

I think this quote from Benjamin Franklin says it all:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer (1706 - 1790)

[dasmi]

"The only way Governments can induce citizens to surrender their rights is convincing them that by doing so, they will gain a measure of safety in exchange" -Thomas Jefferson

[Tomcat1066]

Stupid people shouldn't breed.

Tom

[rick_reno]

Fellow patriots and Bush apologists – be aware and on the lookout for terrorists. Without this critical legislation they’ll know we’re weak and will seek to exploit those weaknesses. I’m going to sign off now and keep the binoculars glued to my eyes, watching…always watching.

[cosine]

"I don't want to hear again from the attorney general or anyone on this floor that this government has shown it can be trusted to use the power we give it with restraint and care," said Feingold, the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001." From: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051216/ap_on_go_co/patriot_act

I don't get how this guy, (liberal from WI here) is always so concerned about civil liberties and yet is so staunchly anti-gun



Lots of good quotes in this thread. We are truly safer with regard to personal freedom and civil liberties without the Patriot Act.

[jbear6]

"The only way Governments can induce citizens to surrender their rights is convincing them that by doing so, they will gain a measure of safety in exchange" -Thomas Jefferson

Excellent find! I think if you read both quotes together, they make a powerful statement:

"The only way Governments can induce citizens to surrender their rights is convincing them that by doing so, they will gain a measure of safety in exchange" - Thomas Jefferson

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

[benEzra]

"I don't want to hear again from the attorney general or anyone on this floor that this government has shown it can be trusted to use the power we give it with restraint and care," said Feingold, the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001." From: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051216/...co/patriot_act

I don't get how this guy, (liberal from WI here) is always so concerned about civil liberties and yet is so staunchly anti-gun

Feingold isn't anti-gun. He may have voted for the original AWB but later admitted he was wrong, and voted AGAINST the renewal of the AWB last year. He is in general quite pro-gun, from what I have read.

[dasmi]

How about these two quotes together?

"The only way Governments can induce citizens to surrender their rights is convincing them that by doing so, they will gain a measure of safety in exchange" -Thomas Jefferson

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe." -U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, November 18, 1993

[natedog]

Feingold seems quite inconsistent on civil liberties- he did cosponsor the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act.

[72Rover]

I think this quote from Benjamin Franklin says it all:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer (1706 - 1790)

+1... Excellent quote, jbear. But I think the actual text ends with "...and shall have neither."

Cheers

[Crosshair]

w00t, both my reps voted against the renewal. Here is a link so you can see how you're reps voted. I got a letter from one of my reps a few days ago. I might post it online.

*happy dance*

Senate Voting record of Patriot Act (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00358)


Edit: here is the letter I got from my rep. True to his word he voted against the renewal. Got to love a pro-gun Democrat.:)

300+ Kb JPEG file. Letter from my rep about the Patriot Act. Good read (http://gra.midco.net/5937/Random%20Images/Byran%20Dorgan%20Letter.JPG)

[Sindawe]

Remember this next time we go to the polls.

Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay

[pcf]

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Craig (R-ID)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Wyden (D-OR)

[cosine]

Feingold isn't anti-gun. He may have voted for the original AWB but later admitted he was wrong, and voted AGAINST the renewal of the AWB last year. He is in general quite pro-gun, from what I have read.

I guess that's so. My mistake. But he does support some positions on guns that I don't agree with.

[Werewolf]

This is the text of the rather harsh message I sent to my senators - both of who voted to renew the abomination called the patriot act:"The only way Governments can induce citizens to surrender their rights is convincing them that by doing so, they will gain a measure of safety in exchange" -Thomas Jefferson

Read the words of Mr. Jefferson and then hang your head in shame.

It truly saddens me that you voted to renew the Patriot Act an act that violates the basic freedoms of all Americans through out our history.

It seems that more and more the Republican party is abandoning the prinicpals upon which our nation was founded. And that's really too bad because that only leaves the Democrats who are even worse and 3rd parties to protect and restore our lost liberties.

Ben Franklin got it right when he said that those who choose to give up liberty to get security don't deserve either and usually get neither.

Welcome to Amerika...
You'll get no thanks from me for making it that way.

[lostone1413]

Funny how the ones who voted for our freedoms were almost all Democrats. The ones who spit on the constitution this time were almost all Republican

[fourays2]

Funny how the ones who voted for our freedoms were almost all Democrats. The ones who spit on the constitution this time were almost all Republican
well the dems weren't really voting for our freedoms, they were just voting as partisan hacks. the ones that deserve kudos for voting for our freedoms are the republicans that voted no.

[Lone_Gunman]

well the dems weren't really voting for our freedoms, they were just voting as partisan hacks.

The Republicans who voted yes were all partisan hacks also.

This is a major defeat for Bush. Its about damn time.

[71Commander]

It has DeWine (R-OH), voting Yea. He never votes along party lines or for something that the republican party backs.

If I drank, i'd break out the champagne.:p

[Wiley]

I think I heard that the vote was to invoke clothure. Not to vote against the patriot act or extensions. (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

The upshot is that the extensions are dead for this session, but the underlying law remains in effect. So most of the stupidity is still on the books and the remaining will expire only until the critters get back in Jan.

[jbear6]

Funny how the ones who voted for our freedoms were almost all Democrats. The ones who spit on the constitution this time were almost all Republican

I'm embarrassed to admit that I voted for Bush both times, I've always been a Republican. I don't know what I am now, I guess I'm just an American with no political ties. I have a bad feeling Bush has made it easier for Hillary to succeed him, if there is a United States of America left when he is finished. :fire:

[Tomcat1066]

Both of my Senators voted yea.


I'll be voting nay on both of them next election!

I don't want anyone making laws that will spit on our liberty this way.

Tom

[GTSteve03]

Both of my Senators voted yea.


I'll be voting nay on both of them next election!

I don't want anyone making laws that will spit on our liberty this way.
I was ashamed to not see either of the GA names on that list. I guess I will have to be joining you in outing them next go 'round. :(

[AirForceShooter]

And the New York Times sat on the NSA story for a whole year.
It's all in the timing.

AFS

[jsalcedo]

Remember folks...

The Dems shot down the patriot act not because they believe in freedom
but because they hate Bush.

Whatever works.

As long as we can keep the freedom haters at each others throats the better
off we will be in the long run.

[Can'thavenuthingood]

Yeah, I understood this vote to be for cloture, to end filibuster and allow a vote on PATSY ll.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051216/D8EHJ6M81.html

Vick

[Liberty.45ACP]

I was ashamed to not see either of the GA names on that list. I guess I will have to be joining you in outing them next go 'round. :(

Same here. :cuss:

[rick_reno]

Yeah, I understood this vote to be for cloture, to end filibuster and allow a vote on PATSY ll.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051216/D8EHJ6M81.html

Vick

That's why Frist voted "Nay" - under their rules this allows him to bring it up again at any time. It'll pass, that's a given - what it looks like when it does is the only question.

[JohnKSa]

The Republicans who voted yes were all partisan hacks also.What, it was too much work to read the very next sentence in his post? Where he stated almost exactly what you did but in the converse...

[Camp David]

I think this quote from Benjamin Franklin says it all:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer (1706 - 1790)

Ben Franklin never had to deal with terrorists in our midst; planning suicide attacks...

I am sad that our Congress is playing on the side of the terrorists; endangering the homeland, and not supporting the War on Terror.

They need to make the Patriot Act permanent, now, and stop playing politics with our nation's security!

[jsalcedo]

Imagine what a left wing administration would do with a full bore patriot act..

Terrorism is not an excuse to trample the rights of Americans.

Nothing is going to stop a committed suicide bomber except for a well armed
and vigilant citizenry.

[Shmackey]

Feingold has some straight-up balls, it turns out.

[KriegHund]

Patriot Act fails to get votes for time being

GOOD

[GigaBuist]

They need to make the Patriot Act permanent, now, and stop playing politics with our nation's security!
You are 100% correct there, sir!

When 19 foreigners make it into this country and get themselves state issued ID and hijack 4 airliners the only logical course of action is to give the Federal government the power to grab library records, personal banking data, and more widespread phone tapping. Further, it's fairly obvious after those 19 hijackers did the deed that we must start forcing banks to ask customers why they're opening up a new savings account!

The federal government needs the power to detain people like Jose Padilla for 3 years without charges! This is imperative to our security, folks!

It's so simple and obvious! Why don't you people get it!?

:barf:

[Tomcat1066]

I get sick of people talking about how the Patriot Act will keep us safe. It's not like 9-11 happened because the FBI couldn't see what library books someone checked out :rolleyes:

All my fellow Georgians, we should go ahead and start looking for a viable candidate that will keep our needs in mind. Isakson's vote was enough to make me wish I had run last time (yeah, seriously, I was thinking about running ;) ).

Tom

[Politicallysober]

My neck of the woods here in Indiana, was ofcourse split in the vote. Trust me it wont get news here, It seems anytime I try to explain the patriot act to anyone I get a blank stare. This is a constitutional nightmare in which I have woke up to be surrounded by citizen cattle. Thank all you on THR for saving what sanity I have left.

~Liberty or Death~
I'll take the latter

[cropcirclewalker]

Ben Franklin never had to deal with terrorists in our midst; planning suicide attacks...

I am sad that our Congress is playing on the side of the terrorists; endangering the homeland, and not supporting the War on Terror.

They need to make the Patriot Act permanent, now, and stop playing politics
with our nation's security! Back in yon revolutionary days of yore, your words would be called ........

Tory. :uhoh:

[Lone_Gunman]

What, it was too much work to read the very next sentence in his post? Where he stated almost exactly what you did but in the converse...

Sorry my reiteration offended you.

[wQuay]

The Dems shot down the patriot act not because they believe in freedom
but because they hate Bush.

Whatever works.

Very true. Just like how Republicans are all about "fiscal responsibility" when a Democrat is in office.

[MrTuffPaws]

How can the President get any work down with these obstructionists in the Senate trying to defend constitutional rights?

That actually made me laugh.

[jbear6]

Ben Franklin never had to deal with terrorists in our midst; planning suicide attacks...

I am sad that our Congress is playing on the side of the terrorists; endangering the homeland, and not supporting the War on Terror.

They need to make the Patriot Act permanent, now, and stop playing politics with our nation's security!

It's not about terrorists, it's about the Bill of Rights, and our Constitution. Our founding fathers knew how a government without controls, and oversight could very easily trample the rights of the citizenery. When you give the State Police the right to arrest you, and hold you without charges, enter your house (sneak and peek) without any judical oversight, listen to your phone calls without a warrant, view your banking or telephone records, and imprison your Banker if he lets you know that it happened, etc. How does this fight terrorism?

In a few months, "our" government will stop reporting M3, I suppose that is so the terrorists won't know know how much they are debasing our currency each month. Our government calculates the Consumer Price Index without consideration for the cost of FOOD and ENERGY. Calculate your monthly budget without figuring in the cost of those two insignificant items....hey, you're rich (no inflation here)!

Patriot Act? What the hell is patriotic about taking away the rights of American citizens under the guise of fighting terrorism?

I'm 50 years old, my family was/is a military family. I have always considered myself to be patriotic. How can I condone the Pentagon spying on anti-war church groups? Imagine classifying a church group as a danger to our troops? Now I see how prayer can be a powerful thing. Tapping the phones of american citizens without warrants, just because they make an overseas phone call? This is/was America, we used to make fun of countries that did these things to their citizens, it's not funny now.

[El Tejon]

Any law that can be abused, will be abused.

Government only wants one thing: MORE!

This is no loss, Camp David. Everything the government is whining about, they could do before the Patriot Act, they merely needed probable cause and a warrant.

[Turkey Creek]

"They are saying, ' Trust us, we are following the law'. Give me a break, " said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. "Across the country and across the political spectrum, no one is buying it any more. There is no accountability. There is no oversight. ... This is big brother run amok. ...

http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051217/POLITICS/512170388

The sky has fallen, the moon is in fact made of cheese, the Detroit Lions have won the Super Bowl, and I have a date with Jennifer Love Hewitt- I never thought there would ever be anything Ted would say that I agree with- I really have lived too long :what:

[Biker]

http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051217/POLITICS/512170388

The sky has fallen, the moon is in fact made of cheese, the Detroit Lions have won the Super Bowl, and I have a date with Jennifer Love Hewitt- I never thought there would ever be anything Ted would say that I agree with- I really have lived too long :what:
I have *never* heard anything more ridiculous in my life! Good Lord. I was with you until the "Detroit Lions have won the Super Bowl" part.
The rest is at least possible, but this?
:neener:
Biker

[stevelyn]

Senator Lisa Murkowski has earned my vote and a nice e-mail thanking her for safe-guarding our rights. Uncle Ted (Stevens) on the other hand needs to be sent into retirement. The bastage seems to be getting senile in his old age.:banghead:

[Hawkmoon]

You are 100% correct there, sir!

When 19 foreigners make it into this country and get themselves state issued ID and hijack 4 airliners the only logical course of action is to give the Federal government the power to grab library records, personal banking data, and more widespread phone tapping. Further, it's fairly obvious after those 19 hijackers did the deed that we must start forcing banks to ask customers why they're opening up a new savings account!

The federal government needs the power to detain people like Jose Padilla for 3 years without charges! This is imperative to our security, folks!

It's so simple and obvious! Why don't you people get it!?

:barf:
LoL

I recently went to my local bank branch and the ATM system was down, so I went inside and actually wrote out one of those old-fashioned paper thingies. What are they called again? Checks! Yeah, I wrote a check. To cash. For the munificent sum of $100.

Mind you, I'm in this branch a couple or three times every week, and I know most of the staff on a first name basis. I still had to show TWO forms of ID to cash a check for $100, made out to "CASH."

I feel SOOOOOOOOO much more secure, I cannot even begin to express my relief at being saved from such terroristic activities as cashing checks at their local bank, where the tellers already know who you are. How does this improve anything? The check has my name, address and telephone number on it, and I signed it. The teller could just have done as they have for the last 20 years, and scribbled a note on the check to indicate that, "Yeah, it's him again, I recognize him" and be done. If my $100 somehow showed up in the debris of having flown a 767 into the Sears Tower next month, they'd still know who signed the check, even though I didn't show TWO forms of STATE-ISSUED, PHOTO ID.

[Tomcat1066]

LoL

I recently went to my local bank branch and the ATM system was down, so I went inside and actually wrote out one of those old-fashioned paper thingies. What are they called again? Checks! Yeah, I wrote a check. To cash. For the munificent sum of $100.

Mind you, I'm in this branch a couple or three times every week, and I know most of the staff on a first name basis. I still had to show TWO forms of ID to cash a check for $100, made out to "CASH."

I feel SOOOOOOOOO much more secure, I cannot even begin to express my relief at being saved from such terroristic activities as cashing checks at their local bank, where the tellers already know who you are. How does this improve anything? The check has my name, address and telephone number on it, and I signed it. The teller could just have done as they have for the last 20 years, and scribbled a note on the check to indicate that, "Yeah, it's him again, I recognize him" and be done. If my $100 somehow showed up in the debris of having flown a 767 into the Sears Tower next month, they'd still know who signed the check, even though I didn't show TWO forms of STATE-ISSUED, PHOTO ID.

But when Al Queda learns how to shapeshift, you'll be thankful. ;)

I have no problem with the government getting these records. I have a problem for the ways they can get these records.

Tom

[beerslurpy]

And the New York Times sat on the NSA story for a whole year.
It's all in the timing.

AFS
And I am grateful that they did. I hope this filibuster continues and gains momentum.

[roo_ster]

And I am grateful that they did. I hope this filibuster continues and gains momentum.

Sometimes, especially with slime-trail-leaving types like Teddy "Splash" Kennedy, they do the right thing for the wrong reason.

You take your victories where you can from whence you can.

[saltydog]

Stupid people shouldn't breed.
Tom

Hey Tom I agree. Some of the Fox News Idiots don't need to breed either!:uhoh:

[blackrazor]

1) Most people here hate the Patriot act

2) Most people here voted for Bush and/or are registered Republicans

3) Bush and most Republicans support the Patriot act.

[looney tunes voice]IT JUST DON'T ADD UP![/looney tunes voice]

Anybody here who voted for Bush and hates the Patriot act needs to do some serious thinking. WHAT in THE HELL were you thinking?

they do the right thing for the wrong reason

Huh? So wait, let me see if I've got this straight: when a Republican votes for the Patriot act, what are they doing? The wrong thing for the right reason?!! Wow, that makes me feel a whole lot better. Newsflash! Politicians do everything for one reason and one reason only... VOTES. And if you voted for Bush, then you voted for the Patriot act. End of story. Don't like the way that makes you feel? Next election, try growing a pair and voting for who you actually support, instead of joining the sheep like a party stooge.

[jsalcedo]

Don't like the way that makes you feel? Next election, try growing a pair and voting for who you actually support, instead of joining the sheep like a party stooge.

Then we would have Kerry and every possible gun ban he could sign.

Something really drastic will have to happen for a third party to have a chance like our current parties being caught in league with satan, aliens and the French.

[Ezekiel]

WHAT in THE HELL were you thinking?

Single issue (guns) voters. Potentially incredibly short-sighted.

There are folks who would readily vote in a trained monkey if promised free access to Uzi's. Oh, wait... :banghead:

[Liberty.45ACP]

Anybody here who voted for Bush and hates the Patriot act needs to do some serious thinking. WHAT in THE HELL were you thinking?

That in spite of it all, we would be worse off still with that kerry creature.

[dasmi]

Anybody here who voted for Bush and hates the Patriot act needs to do some serious thinking. WHAT in THE HELL were you thinking?
That he did an OK job during his first term. That I didn't want Kerry to be my president.
But, I have done some serious thinking, and I'll never vote for another Bush-style republican again. I'll probably never vote Republican again, actually. Or Democrat.

[cropcirclewalker]

Something really drastic will have to happen for a third party to have a chance like our current parties being caught in league with satan, aliens and the French. Kerry looks French.

So that's 2 1/2 outa 3.

Good enough?

[c_yeager]

Sometimes, especially with slime-trail-leaving types like Teddy "Splash" Kennedy, they do the right thing for the wrong reason.

You take your victories where you can from whence you can.

That pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter.

Of course we did learn something from this. The Republicans are quite willing to sell our freedom right down the crapper for their own political gain. Of course, we already know this about the Democrats. Looks like its time for some more parties.

[Camp David]

The Republicans are quite willing to sell our freedom right down the crapper for their own political gain...

Explain the comment above "their own political gain" inherent in the Patriot Act? Love to hear this...

...unless defending freedom and assuring national security is seen by you as political gain? ;)

[dasmi]

...unless defending freedom and
Please explain how wiretaps, on American citizens, by the NSA, without a court order, defend freedom.

[Biker]

Please explain how wiretaps, on American citizens, by the NSA, without a court order, defend freedom.
What he said.
Biker

[blackrazor]

That in spite of it all, we would be worse off still with that kerry creature.


Perhaps, but this statement is based on a false assumption: that not voting for Bush is a vote for Kerry. Folks, only one thing is a vote for Kerry, and that's voting for Kerry. Breaking the cycle starts with you... you don't have to vote for a giant ****** or a turd sandwich.

...unless defending freedom and assuring national security is seen by you as political gain?

hmmm... maybe it's because... let's see... the Patriot act does nothing for national security and is the biggest blow to freedom penned to paper in the last 50 years? Wait, let me guess, you have nothing to hide, right? It's a small price to pay for a little security, right? Well, good 'ol Ben Franklin's got something to tell you:

They that can give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety

[dasmi]

Blackrazor, as long as we're quoting important Americans...
"The only way Governments can induce citizens to surrender their rights is convincing them that by doing so, they will gain a measure of safety in exchange" -Thomas Jefferson

[Camp David]

Please explain how wiretaps, on American citizens, by the NSA, without a court order, defend freedom.

You assume they are being conducted on American citizens and you assume they are being done on ordinary folks without guilt. Both are probably wrong assumptions... These wiretaps are being conducted on enemies of the state -- terror cells and members -- that may be a public danger. Would you rather the President reacted after the fact (after the bombing) or proactively (stopping the bombing). Your choice.

[Tomcat1066]

And Camp David has a comeback for the Franklin quote, and it will deal with his opinion as to what the dead think about something.

And he seems to forget that some of us don't agree with that though process.

A warrant isn't hard to get, especially when there is a judge that handles intelligence cases specifically. I would assume that this judge does this because they know how to be discrete, as well as quick. When dealing with a threat to people's lives, I really believe you should be quick as possible, but you HAVE to follow the Constitution.

It's the law of the land that applies to ALL!

Tom

[Tomcat1066]

You assume they are being conducted on American citizens and you assume they are being done on ordinary folks without guilt. Both are probably wrong assumptions... These wiretaps are being conducted on enemies of the state -- terror cells and members -- that may be a public danger. Would you rather the President reacted after the fact (after the bombing) or proactively (stopping the bombing). Your choice.


I thought we were just asking for them to get warrants to conduct the wiretaps. I guess we're just asking to much then :rolleyes:

Tom

[Camp David]

A warrant isn't hard to get

If the wiretap is done with or without a warrant, the subject will not know it. So what is the real difference? Are your civil liberties reaffirmed if a judge oks a wire tap?

[dasmi]

You assume they are being conducted on American citizens and you assume they are being done on ordinary folks without guilt. Both are probably wrong assumptions... These wiretaps are being conducted on enemies of the state -- terror cells and members -- that may be a public danger. Would you rather the President reacted after the fact (after the bombing) or proactively (stopping the bombing). Your choice.
So, in America, the Government can decide someone is guilty without a trial?
Guilty until proven innocent? Hmm. Ok then.

[Tomcat1066]

uhhhh yes!

It shows that the protections against unreasonable search and siezure were followed. THAT is what I've been talking about. Not disallowing wiretaps, but requiring a simple piece of paper as a protection of MY RIGHTS as a citizen of the United States.

Tom

[rick_reno]

Please explain how wiretaps, on American citizens, by the NSA, without a court order, defend freedom.

That's easy. It's the "We had to burn the village to save it" logic. Once you've bought it into - and apparently Camp David has - you can buy into any dribble that happens to emit from the Presidents mouth.

How anyone can even use the terms "liberty" and "freedom" in the context of the Patriot Act is beyond me, yet Bush has managed to use these and other patriotic phases many times in describing it.

Read the book "1776" by David McCullough and you'll get first hand accounts of what brave men and women were willing to sacrifice for the freedoms we enjoy today - the very freedoms that these eilte statists are eager to remove with a simple swipe of the pen. It's worse than disgusting - it's treason.

[Camp David]

So, in America, the Government can decide someone is guilty without a trial?

Your e-mail and internet activity is being recorded by a myriad devices (private companies do this). Does that mean you are guilty? No. Your likeness is recorded by digital film throughout the nation by a myriad digital cameras. Does this mean you are guilty? No. Then why are you so alarmed that perhaps your audio telephone calls might be recorded? You certainly don't seem to mind your video and internet communications are recorded!

Drive through an intersection today with your car? Chances are you were recorded!

[dasmi]

Camp David, you didn't actually address what I said. Try again.
And yes, I do have a problem with all the recording going on.

[Tomcat1066]

Tell you what Camp David. When the America you are calling for shows up, you can have it.

I'll fight against THAT America with every breath in my body.

Tom

[dasmi]

+1, Tomcat1066

[Camp David]

Camp David, you didn't actually address what I said. Try again...

Fighting terrorism requires tactics that most abhor. One almost has to lower oneself to their level. That's key. These terrorists do not wear uniforms, have a beligerant nation, or maintain domecile in one area. They are among us. Their cells are among us...

Your prior post asked, "...the Government can decide someone is guilty without a trial?" Yes. And I'm glad they do. Becuase if we wait for a trial with terrorists, a plane is hijacked, a building is bombed, or a bridge is detonated. Or worse... a city is poisoned.

Your ignorance of the threat is so pronounced. The President has said a thousand times this is a different type of war. Why can't you pick up on that?

I am glad the government is finally doing something about terror. As far as a trial, that is not what the terrorists would give you!

But if you wish to wait and go through formal procedures while addressing terror, you might wish to pay attention to France... And England... and Spain... they ignored the spectre of terror as we did earlier...

[dasmi]

Camp David,
You seem to be happy that the government can decide guilt without a trial.
How will you feel, do you think, when the government decides that gun owners are a threat to the state, and uses the precident being set right now, by this administration? What will happen when the government decides Christians preach hate, and they are a threat? What will happen when the government decides that because you checked out a certain book at the library, you are a threat? How will you feel when this happens to you? I for one am not willing to allow the government that sort of authority. I am not willing to live in that America.

Your ignorance of the threat is so pronounced. The President has said a thousand times this is a different type of war. Why can't you pick up on that?

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." Hermann Goring - Nuremberg Trials

[Camp David]

I am not willing to live in that America.

Move to France... post haste! Wait a minute... try Jordan... I understand the hotels there are nice and safe...

[Tomcat1066]

As far as a trial, that is not what the terrorists would give you!


And we're supposed to be above that level of barbarism.

After all, we don't cut the heads off of people because we don't like where they are from. We don't strap bombs to our chest and blow up school buses.

There's lots of stuff they do that we don't, which is why they hate us. I'm ok with that.

Tom

[dasmi]

Once again, you did not address my actual point. You are the one who ought to move to Jordan, you seem to be willing to allow a Government that is all-powerful. I am done with you, you are a lost cause.

[blackrazor]

Your e-mail and internet activity is being recorded by a myriad devices (private companies do this). Does that mean you are guilty? No. Your likeness is recorded by digital film throughout the nation by a myriad digital cameras. Does this mean you are guilty? No. Then why are you so alarmed that perhaps your audio telephone calls might be recorded? You certainly don't seem to mind your video and internet communications are recorded!


And with that quote, it now becomes obvious that Camp David doesn't even understand the premise of the argument. OF COURSE it doesn't mean we're guilty, but my guilt has NOTHING TO DO with whether such surveillance is right or wrong. Just because my internet activity might be recorded, doesn't make it right. Just because I'm recorded on digital film, doesn't make it right. And just because the .gov is recording my phone calls doesn't make it right. You people who think that having .gov spy on you just because you're not guily have no concept, I repeat, NO CONCEPT AT ALL, of what freedom is about.

I would tell you to read some books, do some research, but you are clearly beyond help. You will never support true freedom, mostly because you don't even understand the word.

[blackrazor]

Your prior post asked, "...the Government can decide someone is guilty without a trial?" Yes. And I'm glad they do. Becuase if we wait for a trial with terrorists, a plane is hijacked, a building is bombed, or a bridge is detonated. Or worse... a city is poisoned.


Dude, deal with it. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the world's not a safe place, and it's never going to be, no matter how many roving wire tap secret police organizations we have. Time to wise up and stop being such an unforgivable wuss!

[Camp David]

You will never support true freedom, mostly because you don't even understand the word.

To be free presupposes the ability to be alive... a central fact you not only do not understand, you've not even considered it.

I submit that you are making a mountain out of a molehill... as usual for the chicken little crowd. The Patriot Act works... despite your alarm you need to adress that, not some preconceived idea that it might deny you some liberty you didn't even know you had.

[SB88LX]

"Give me liberty or give me death" is one I like.

[lostone1413]

I can't believe anyone thinks the Patroit Act has anything to do with fighting terrorism. Over one million a year just walk into the country. We have a King oh I mean President who will do nothing about it. Oh I forgot the cheap labor is good for big business. Guess the terrorist wouldn't be smart enough to just walk into the country. People better forget about the threat to our freedoms from the Mid East. Might be better to worry about the threat to our freedoms from DC

[Igloodude]

To be free presupposes the ability to be alive... a central fact you not only do not understand, you've not even considered it.

I submit that you are making a mountain out of a molehill... as usual for the chicken little crowd. The Patriot Act works... despite your alarm you need to adress that, not some preconceived idea that it might deny you some liberty you didn't even know you had.

"The Patriot Act works" - can you support this statement with anything other than self-serving quotes by the Bush Administration?

And please refrain from "We haven't been attacked since 9/11". That logic is as faulty as claiming that banning boxcutters, scissors, and nailclippers on airliners has prevented all hijackings.

[Liberty.45ACP]

You assume they are being conducted on American citizens and you assume they are being done on ordinary folks without guilt. Both are probably wrong assumptions... These wiretaps are being conducted on enemies of the state -- terror cells and members -- that may be a public danger. Would you rather the President reacted after the fact (after the bombing) or proactively (stopping the bombing). Your choice.

First - if they have a reason, then get a warrant. Period. Citizens, terrorists, whoever - as long it's on American soil, get a warrant.

If the choice entails wanton destruction of the constitution and our rights enumerated there, then it's wrong. It is wrong to seek security at any cost. Some things are more important than security. Freedom often has a high price.

[dasmi]

If the choice entails wanton destruction of the constitution and our rights enumerated there, then it's wrong. It is wrong to seek security at any cost. Some things are more inportant than security.
+1!
And especially security that is more feel-good than substance.

[RealGun]

Apparently nine Senators are getting press as "civil libertarians", opposing passage of the Patriot Act renewal without specific oversight provisions or outright elimination of certain provisions. Those Senators are referred to in a number of articles, but getting a list of names is not easy. My best research effort is as follows:

Salazar - D
Feingold - D
Feinstein - D
Leahy - D
Durbin - D
Sununu - R
Craig - R
Murkowski - R
Hagel - R

Feingold is getting extra mileage from this because he voted against the original Patriot Act, I believe for the same reasons.

[Camp David]

First - if they have a reason, then get a warrant. Period. Citizens, terrorists, whoever - as long it's on American soil, get a warrant...

Want the government to wait?

Then don't you dare complain if your wife, family, or any other member of your family dies from a terror attack... in fact... get use to it! Don't ask the government to protect you from terror... don't get mad when people you love become hamburg on the side of a restaurant wall... get use to sports events becoming venues for mass bombings... why? You encourage it!

I think a tactic the government needs to adopt -- due to the prevalence of people opposed to the government doing something about terror -- is to tell folks what to expect!

The people of Israel need to be ambassadors about what to expect from terrorism... perhaps some of the bus bombing survivors from the West Bank could give a talk here and explain how it feels to see terror bombers detonate implosion devices on board packed buses.... perhaps survivors of Jordan's hotel bombings could describe how they pick pieces of body parts off the floor for weeks....

Then don't you dare complain if your wife, family, or any other member of your family dies from a terror attack... in fact... get use to it! Don't ask the government to protect you from terror... don't get mad when people you love become hamburg on the side of a restaurant wall... get use to sports events becoming venues for mass bombings... why? You encourage it!

The fight against terror is a different kind of war; if we handicap the government in the tools it uses to fight this war, three words will need be said: We will lose!

[Beren]

The fight against terror is a different kind of war; if we handicap the government in the tools it uses to fight this war, three words will need be said: We will lose!

Sigh.

"The appeal to probability is a logical fallacy, often used in conjunction with other fallacies. It assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen. This is flawed logic, regardless of the likelihood of the event in question. The fallacy is often used to exploit paranoia."

"Argumentum ad baculum (Latin: argument to the cudgel or appeal to the stick), also known as appeal to force, is an argument where force, coercion, or the threat of force, is given as a justification for a conclusion. One participates in this type of argument when one points out the violent consequences of holding a contrary position."

ETA, for good measure:

"The logical fallacy of false dilemma, which is also known as fallacy of the excluded middle, false dichotomy, either/or dilemma or bifurcation, involves a situation in which two alternative points of view are held to be the only options, when in reality there exist one or more alternate options which have not been considered."

I don't mind increased collaboration between intelligence services, so long as privacy protections and court supervision are in place as appropriate. There are other sections of the PATRIOT Act I do protest. Some of its measures make sense, and it would behoove the Liberals to propose an alternative bill only reauthorizing certain sections.

[armoredman]

I think I see the presupposition Camp David is using. He believes the government is required to protect him. The Supreme Court has upheld that to be a fallacy. You ARE required to take your own defense in hand, and the government, local, state or federal, cannot be held responsable for not protecting you.
Therein lies our "difficulties" with the Patriot Act and all other intrusive acts of the government. They have no obligation to do anything but secure the border, and provide for the common defense, but cannot do the first, but does the second well enough.
I f we concentrated on securing our sieve borders, and not spying on innocent Americans, that might go a lot farther do deterring terroristic acts.
of course, I always agree i could be wrong....just not likely.

[Camp David]

I think I see the presupposition Camp David is using. He believes the government is required to protect him.

The U.S. Constitution requires it. Give it a read sometime!
Preamble: "...provide for the common defense..."
Article II. Sect.1, Clause 1: "...The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States..."
Article IV. Sect. 2, Clause 1: "...The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States..."

It is inherent within the Constitution, in these passages and others, that the government has an indelible contract with its people for their protection and the President and Congress oversee that obligation. Others have written in detail on this obligation.

[Werewolf]

The U.S. Constitution requires it. Give it a read sometime!
Preamble: "...provide for the common defense..."
Article II. Sect.1, Clause 1: "...The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States..."
Article IV. Sect. 2, Clause 1: "...The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States..."

It is inherent within the Constitution, in these passages and others, that the government has an indelible contract with its people for their protection and the President and Congress oversee that obligation. Others have written in detail on this obligation.I find it quite telling though how the President and Congress seem to cherry pick exactly how they exercise their obligation to provide for the common defense. Some threats are deemed worthy while others aren't. How odd...

The Patriot Act is wholly symptomatic of the cherry picking that congress and el presidente' do.

[armoredman]

No, sir, the Constitution, as defined by the Supreme Court, does NOT require the government to protect YOU, all by your lonesome. To protect the country at large, certainly, but then again, we here know how well the government follows the Consitution, don't we? You, as an individual, are not entitled to individual protection from fed.gov. As upheld as recently as this year, the Supreme Court has held an individual is responsable for his or her own protection. Period. Country at large, and little old you, are two separate legal entities.
While you're looking at the Supreme Law Of The Land, have a gander at the Fourth Amendment, and square that with warrantless fishing expeditions by government employees under the PA.
How does an NSL square with anything in the Constitution? Please, educate, elucidate, clarify.

[Liberty.45ACP]

The fight against terror is a different kind of war; if we handicap the government in the tools it uses to fight this war, three words will need be said: We will lose!

So, you believe that anything the government wishes to do in the name of The War on Terror is fine? The Government can do no wrong? That the government would never use these against it's own population? :scrutiny:

Security at any cost?

You are either hopelessly naive, or worse. :barf:

[Satch]

The next time "they" hit us the Act will pass with things in it that will make your head spin, and the Dems. who voted against this one will claim the new P.A. was long passed due being passed and needed to defend us,-----and the leftist press will praise the Dems.for their courage and forsight to pass a stronger P.A.. It's all politics people.:rolleyes:

[dasmi]

The next time "they" hit us the Act will pass with things in it that will make your head spin, and the Dems. who voted against this one will claim the new P.A. was long passed due being passed and needed to defend us,-----and the leftist press will praise the Dems.for their courage and forsight to pass a stronger P.A.. It's all politics people.:rolleyes:

You are absolutely, 100% correct about that.

[No_Brakes23]

So, let me get this straight, the only Republicans worth a damn are:

Craig (R-ID), Nay
Frist (R-TN), Nay
Hagel (R-NE), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Sununu (R-NH), Nay

That about right?

And Frist just voted Nay so he could weasel it back in again?

I think I heard that the vote was to invoke clothure. Not to vote against the patriot act or extensions. (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

The upshot is that the extensions are dead for this session, but the underlying law remains in effect. So most of the stupidity is still on the books and the remaining will expire only until the critters get back in Jan.

I think you are right, since some of these Dems, (Like Feinstein, for instance,) have repeatedly been quoted as being pro-PatAct. in fact just last week on NPR, I heard a sound bite of DiFi saying something good about the PatAct.

Sometimes, especially with slime-trail-leaving types like Teddy "Splash" Kennedy, they do the right thing for the wrong reason.

You take your victories where you can from whence you can.

+1 I must confess, I am surprised to see myself giving an "ataboy" to the Hero of Chappaquiddick

Anybody here who voted for Bush and hates the Patriot act needs to do some serious thinking. WHAT in THE HELL were you thinking? Hmmm, maybe they pro-Bush folks were thinking about Kerry's Yea vote on the Pat Act. Or did you forget about that? Can you say "lesser of two evils"? Kerry would take away ALL of our civil rights.

Would you rather the President reacted after the fact (after the bombing) or proactively (stopping the bombing). Your choice. Well considering the second choice is pure Hollywood Fairytale, I will take the first along with what is left of my civil rights. Quit watching 24 and come back to the real world where bumbling F-troop can't do anything to stop commited t'ar'rists from bombing things. Freedom is dangerous, you can't nerf the world, live with it or die, those are your only choices.

Tell you what Camp David. When the America you are calling for shows up, you can have it.

I'll fight against THAT America with every breath in my body.

Tom +1

[RealGun]

Anybody here who voted for Bush and hates the Patriot act needs to do some serious thinking. WHAT in THE HELL were you thinking?

I couldn't find where you got this quote, but my response to it is that the PA is an appropriate response to 9/11, and all but one Senator thought so by their votes. The problems are only with certain provisions, which compromise the American way without compelling reasons or adequate safeguards against abuse.

What is particularly offensive right now is Harry Reid blaming the administration for failure to renew the Patriot Act sunsetting provisions, when it is the Dems who are voting against it for obviously partisan reasons, taking credit where they should get none. The country seems to operate and prosper in spite of these clowns.

As far as I know, Larry Craig is the only Senator with real apparent personal integrity here, because the other three Republicans who are hold outs for passage votes represent States that traditionally are champions of personal freedom, sort of their own mini caucus. They are doing what they were elected to do, but their position is either pure State politics, or it is hard to say whether it is a personal position on the matter.

In any case, I would say that Larry Craig should be a rather popular guy here, considering his leadership against gun control and attention to civil liberty issues.

[Igloodude]

As far as I know, Larry Craig is the only Senator with real apparent personal integrity here, because the other three Republicans who are hold outs for passage votes represent States that traditionally are champions of personal freedom, sort of their own mini caucus. They are doing what they were elected to do, but their position is either pure State politics, or it is hard to say whether it is a personal position on the matter.

In any case, I would say that Larry Craig should be a rather popular guy here, considering his leadership against gun control and attention to civil liberty issues.

If you were to ask me what states traditionally are champions of personal freedom, New Hampshire and Alaska would certainly be two, but Idaho and Montana wouldn't be far behind, either. Don't get me wrong though, I'm a big Larry Craig fan, and we could do with a few more of his ilk.

By the way, thanks for that list, I'm thanking them all (with the exception of Frist, who seems to have had an ulterior motive).

[RealGun]

Apparently nine Senators are getting press as "civil libertarians", opposing passage of the Patriot Act renewal without specific oversight provisions or outright elimination of certain provisions. Those Senators are referred to in a number of articles, but getting a list of names is not easy. My best research effort is as follows:

Salazar - D
Feingold - D
Feinstein - D
Leahy - D
Durbin - D
Sununu - R
Craig - R
Murkowski - R
Hagel - R

Feingold is getting extra mileage from this because he voted against the original Patriot Act, I believe for the same reasons.

Has anyone else noted the hypocrisy in concerns for what is or is not "constitutional"? Referring to people as "ACLU types" kind of says it all.

[Igloodude]

Has anyone else noted the hypocrisy in concerns for what is or is not "constitutional"? Referring to people as "ACLU types" kind of says it all.

I'm not sure I understand your question, could you elaborate?

[RealGun]

I'm not sure I understand your question, could you elaborate?

Especially the Democrats on the list don't support RKBA but get all righteous about privacy.

[blackrazor]

So, let me get this straight, the only Republicans worth a damn are:

Craig (R-ID), Nay
Frist (R-TN), Nay
Hagel (R-NE), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Sununu (R-NH), Nay

That about right?


With the exception of Frist, yeah, those are the only Republicans worth a damn... meaning Republicans in general aren't worth a damn. And we all know Democrats aren't worth a damn, so that kinda narrows it down. Republicans... Democrats... same @#$%, different name.

Then don't you dare complain if your wife, family, or any other member of your family dies from a terror attack

I won't.

Don't ask the government to protect you from terror...

I don't.

don't get mad when people you love become hamburg on the side of a restaurant wall...

Oh, I'll get mad alright. But even in my anger, I'm sure I'd never be reduced to the level of a whining, sniveling, freedom compromising, constitution burning coward who would willingly trade away his and everyone else's freedom for the mere illusion of security. :barf: I'll never subscribe to this administration's fearmongering brainwashing tactics.

[PCGS65]

Back to the topic.
Rumor has it congress just passed the patriot act extension.
Could be good if it prevents a terrorist attack. But we'll never know.

[dasmi]

They gave it a 6 month extension.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/12/22/senate_votes_to_extend_patriot_act_for_6_months/

[Lone_Gunman]

Benjamin Franklin said it best:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "


If you support the Patriot Act you do not support the ideals upon which this republic was founded.

Al qaeda cannot destroy this country. They can kill some of us from time to time, occassionally blow up an airplane or building, but that is it.

By allowing the government to spin further toward totalitarianism however, we can destroy ourselves. Patriot Act is the first step. The slope gets more slippery every day.

[Igloodude]

Especially the Democrats on the list don't support RKBA but get all righteous about privacy.

True. That's why I'll side with the Dems (on that list) when they're getting all righteous about privacy, and I'll fight them tooth and nail when they're knocking the RKBA.

And vice versa for the pro-RKBA-but-wanting-cameras-in-my-bedroom Republicans.

[Camp David]

Al qaeda cannot destroy this country. They can kill some of us from time to time, occassionally blow up an airplane or building, but that is it...

Such logic defines a pacifist. Why?

"The Japanese cannot destroy this country. They can kill some of us in Pearl Harbor, occassionally blow up a ship in the Pacific, but that is it."

"The Germans cannot destroy this country. They can kill some of us crossing the Atlantic in ships, occassionally blow up merchant shipping, but that is it."

"The Mexicans cannot destroy this country. They can kill some of us at a Mission in Texas, occassionally blow up a wagon train, but that is it."

Thank God such pacifist logic is not widespread or pervasive!

[dasmi]

Such logic defines a pacifist. Why?
Stop listening to Rush and Hannity and Snow as if they were Jesus himself.
Sorry, but Al Qeada is not Japan, or Germany, or Mexico.
Al qaeda cannot destroy this country. They can kill some of us from time to time, occassionally blow up an airplane or building, but that is it.

By allowing the government to spin further toward totalitarianism however, we can destroy ourselves. Patriot Act is the first step. The slope gets more slippery every day.
+1

[Lone_Gunman]

Camp David, I am hardly a pacifist.

I am all for attacking and killing Al-qaeda members. I am absolutely opposed to giving the government the power to spy on US citizens. The Patriot Act will be abused by the government at some point. Governments have shown time and time again that they will abuse all power given to them. I don't think Bush is going to start throwing people in gulags, but I would be very afraid of how Hillary Clinton, or some future fascist wannabe, might use the power that we give the government today.

Our freedoms are more important than the terrorists. Maybe you are more afraid of Al Qaeda than I am.

[Camp David]

Camp David, I am hardly a pacifist..
I didn't think you were; but your argument sounds very pacifistic.

I am absolutely opposed to giving the government the power to spy on US citizens...What about spying on terror cells within this nation? Opposed to spying on them? Or should we wait until they blow u a restaurant or hotel, then arrest the pieces of them we find on the ground?

The Patriot Act will be abused by the government at some point. ...Possibly. No denying that. But the cost of inaction is too great to bear. Got a alternate to the Patriot Act? Let's hear it?

Our freedoms are more important than the terrorists...I agree... but those freedoms aren't worth much when you or members of your family are blown to the side of a wall and end up as hamburg by a terrorist you decided wasn't worth the effort of stopping.

[dasmi]

Liberty or death, my friend.
How long until the government decides YOUR church is a "terror cell?"

[Camp David]

How long until the government decides YOUR church is a "terror cell?"

It did that at Waco without the Patriot Act! :rolleyes:

[dasmi]

Exactly. And yet, you wish to give the Government who did Waco even more power.

[Lone_Gunman]

Camp David, I respectfully disagree with most of what you just said.

I will elaborate:

What about spying on terror cells within this nation? Opposed to spying on them?

If they are US citizens, they need to be treated as such, regardless of whether the government thinks they might be terrorists. By our birth right as US citizens, we are guaranteed what is provided in the Constitution. The main thing the Patriot Act seems to do is allow the government to spy on people without the need for court orders. Court orders are not hard to obtain if good cause can be shown, but I think that they an important safeguard to keep bureaucrats from abusing the power of their office.

But the cost of inaction is too great to bear. Got a alternate to the Patriot Act? Let's hear it?

Yes, my alternative is to enforce the laws we already have. We already have means for the government to investigate people. They should continue to use the same procedures they have always used. One terrorist attack in 225 years should not make our legal system obsolete. If they think they need to spy on me, get a judge to OK it. That is all I am asking. September 11 did not occur as a result not having enough laws on the books.


those freedoms aren't worth much when you or members of your family are blown to the side of a wall and end up as hamburg by a terrorist you decided wasn't worth the effort of stopping.

I feel this statement preys on personal feelings and appeals only to emotion. Although I would be grief stricken if what you described happened, I cannot honestly say the lives of my family are worth more than the survival of the Republic.

For freedom to live, it must unfortunately be watered with the blood of martyrs. Based on what you are saying, then it does not make sense for soldiers to die defending our liberty. I guess you would say those freedoms arent worth much if you are a soldier killed in battle. There are worse things than dying. One would be living as a slave.

I cannot agree with the idea that our way of life must be destroyed in order to save it.

[Camp David]

If they are US citizens, they need to be treated as such, regardless of whether the government thinks they might be terrorists...

We did that already; allowing terror cell members to take pilots flight courses in Florida, obtain driver's licences in Virginia, and we even helped them get on our aircraft in New York and Washington. To show for it we have 3,000 plus dead civilians.

I doubt we'll settle this Lone_Gunman...

I support our President's actions in this regard; you obviously and clearly do not. But the President's record at preventing further terrorism since 09/11/01 is pretty good, while you have no alternative whatsoever. Indeed, you've not surfaced any plan against fighting terror at all, only to say you don't agree with the one employed by the President. Your plan is business as usual. That plan was employed prior to 09/11/01... and it failed mirserably.

The President was not kidding when he said this War on Terror would be a new kind of war. Ignoring the threat simply because you don't want to change threatens the nation.

I respect your opinion Lone_Gunman, I respectfully disagree...

[No_Brakes23]

Sounds like Camp David would have labeled anyone opposed to WWII Japanese Concentration Camps in America as pacifists. After all, weren't we rounding up all those Japanese, so they couldn't attack us on our own soil?

Trampling their civil rights must have been the right thing to do, since there were no Japanese attacks on the the 48 ConUS states during the entire war, right?

[Lone_Gunman]

Many of the 9-11 terrorists were not US citizens. Several were in the country illegally.

Of those that were, they could have been investigated just as thoroughly with or without the Patriot Act. The only thing different would have been the need to run it all past a judge.

That is not too much to ask.

The reason they could pull off 9-11 was that we were not looking at them at all.

But the President's record at preventing further terrorism since 09/11/01 is pretty good

How many people in US have been convicted of crimes related to terrorism?

[Camp David]

How many people in US have been convicted of crimes related to terrorism?

I don't think you can accurately use this question to assess the results; the best quantifier is the total prevention of domestic terrorism - thus far - since the measure was enacted; i.e., NSA Surveillance and Patriot Act.

If we convict a terrorist, that means he may have already acted; i.e., arrest after the fact, saving no lives. If we prevent the terrorist from acting, we save lives. Who's to say how many acts of terror such measures have prevented?

In your last post, you used the phrase "That is not too much to ask." I would throw it back on you and ask, "Is patience on your part with the Patriot Act too much to ask?"

[dasmi]

I don't think you can accurately use this question to assess the results; the best quantifier is the total prevention of domestic terrorism - thus far - since the measure was enacted; i.e., NSA Surveillance and Patriot Act.
Sorry, that doesn't fly.
Just because we haven't had an attack, does not mean the PATRIOT ACT kept us safe. Logcal fallacy.

[Lone_Gunman]

If we convict a terrorist, that means he may have already acted; i.e., arrest after the fact, saving no lives. If we prevent the terrorist from acting, we save lives. Who's to say how many acts of terror such measures have prevented?

I don't think that is correct. If this law is doing anything, then someone has to have been charged and convicted under it. According to what you are saying, we would have a "catch and release" program for terrorists who are caught and their plans foiled. If the government stops you from carrying out your act of terrorism, they are going to charge you with something. Remember the guy who shined a laser pointer at the jet airplane? I believe he was charged under the Patriot Act.

As for patience with the Patriot Act, no I really don't have any. The law does not add anything that the government really needs to stop terrorists.

If we use the absence of terrorism as the gauge to measure the success of the Patriot Act, does that mean if an act of terrorism occurs tomorrow you would be willing to concede the Patriot Act to be a failure and repeal it?

[Camp David]

If we use the absence of terrorism as the gauge to measure the success of the Patriot Act, does that mean if an act of terrorism occurs tomorrow you would be willing to concede the Patriot Act to be a failure and repeal it?

Only if you are willing to concede that the absence of terrorism means that it is working! ;)

[Lone_Gunman]

Only if you are willing to concede that the absence of terrorism means that it is working!


Maybe the Patriot act is working. It very well could be. That is not my point.

My point is that even if it is working, I do not believe the benefit of catching terrorists a little bit easier outweights the risk of loss of civil liberties.

I am willing to accept a more dangerous, but more free, society.

[blackrazor]

But the cost of inaction is too great to bear. Got a alternate to the Patriot Act? Let's hear it?



Yeah, I have an altenative, it's called nothing. It's about being a man, and learning to accept a little risk in your life. Face it CD, you're never going to be 100% safe. Partriot act or not, your family could always wind up as "hamburg" on the sidewalk.

Maybe freedom and independance just aren't your thing. Like so many other modern Americans, maybe you're happy so long as you're "safe", your belly is full, and you get to watch constant sitcom reruns on TV. I, however, want a little more out of life.

The bottom line is, you're willing to give up your personal liberty in exchange for safety. Respect for individual liberty is not something that can be taught, either you get it or you don't, and you clearly do not get it. This discussion is wasted on you.

[dasmi]

+1

[Fidel Castro]

Yeah, I have an altenative, it's called nothing. It's about being a man, and learning to accept a little risk in your life. Face it CD, you're never going to be 100% safe. Partriot act or not, your family could always wind up as "hamburg" on the sidewalk.

Maybe freedom and independance just aren't your thing. Like so many other modern Americans, maybe you're happy so long as you're "safe", your belly is full, and you get to watch constant sitcom reruns on TV. I, however, want a little more out of life.

The bottom line is, you're willing to give up your personal liberty in exchange for safety. Respect for individual liberty is not something that can be taught, either you get it or you don't, and you clearly do not get it. This discussion is wasted on you.


+INFINITY

[Igloodude]

Only if you are willing to concede that the absence of terrorism means that it is working! ;)

Which would make it tempting to some civil libertarian to go out and commit a terrorist act, then we could all wrap this up, dismantle the Patriot Act, and go home.

Just kidding, of course - you know and I know that if another 9/11-scale attack was committed tomorrow, politicians would be tripping over themselves to pass Son of Patriot Act, because pointing out "we've known all along that there could be another attack, and this was it" and not looking like they're doing anything is politically unpalatable no matter whether they have an R or a D after their name.

[Werewolf]

you know and I know that if another 9/11-scale attack was committed tomorrow, politicians would be tripping over themselves to pass Son of Patriot Act, because pointing out "we've known all along that there could be another attack, and this was it" and not looking like they're doing anything is politically unpalatable no matter whether they have an R or a D after their name.
Let me see if I've got this straight. Sounds like you're saying that politicians really don't give a hoot or a holler whether or not what they do is right or good. It just must seem that way to the great unwashed masses. Does that about sum it up? Seems like a pretty good wrap up of reality to me.

Humph! Imagine that. What a CONCEPT!

[lostone1413]

Liberty or death, my friend.
How long until the government decides YOUR church is a "terror cell?"
Happened before! Remember Waco?? The enemy of our freedoms isn't in the Mid East. They are in the House the Senate and the White House

[Derek Zeanah]

Geez, guys! Come on.

Say it with me now: "if it wouldn't have been OK if Clinton did it, then it's still not OK with Bush does it!"