Patriot Act fails to get votes for time being..

Status
Not open for further replies.
dasmi said:
Camp David, you didn't actually address what I said. Try again...
Click to expand...

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...
 
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?
Click to expand...
"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
Click to expand...
 
dasmi said:
I am not willing to live in that America.
Click to expand...

Move to France... post haste! Wait a minute... try Jordan... I understand the hotels there are nice and safe...
 
Camp David said:
As far as a trial, that is not what the terrorists would give you!
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
blackrazor said:
You will never support true freedom, mostly because you don't even understand the word.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
Camp David said:
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.
Click to expand...

"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.
 
Camp David said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
+1!
And especially security that is more feel-good than substance.
 
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.
 
Liberty.45ACP said:
First - if they have a reason, then get a warrant. Period. Citizens, terrorists, whoever - as long it's on American soil, get a warrant...
Click to expand...

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!
 
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
armoredman said:
I think I see the presupposition Camp David is using. He believes the government is required to protect him.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Cherry Picking at its Best...

Camp David said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Camp David said:
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!
Click to expand...

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:
 
Patriot Act

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:
 
Satch said:
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:
Click to expand...

You are absolutely, 100% correct about that.
 
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?

Wiley said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

+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?
Click to expand...
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.

Camp David said:
Would you rather the President reacted after the fact (after the bombing) or proactively (stopping the bombing). Your choice.
Click to expand...
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.

Tomcat1066 said:
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
Click to expand...
+1
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top