Gore slams Bush over loss of civil liberties

Status
Not open for further replies.

Firefighter

Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2003
Messages
51
Location
Alabama's Gulf Coast
By JENNIFER KERR

WASHINGTON (AP) - Former vice-president Al Gore accused President George W. Bush on Sunday of failing to make the country safer after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and using the war against terrorism as a pretext to consolidate power.

"They have taken us much farther down the road toward an intrusive, 'big brother'-style government - toward the dangers prophesied by George Orwell in his book 1984 - than anyone ever thought would be possible in the United States of America," Gore charged in a speech.

Gore, who lost the disputed 2000 presidential election to Bush, said terrorism-fighting tools granted after Sept. 11 amount to a partisan power grab that have led to the erosion of the civil liberties of all Americans.

He brought many the crowd of 3,000 to their feet when he called for a repeal of the Patriot Act, which expanded government's surveillance and detention power, allowing authorities to monitor books people read and conduct secret searches.

Gore chided the administration for what he said was its "implicit assumption" that Americans must give up traditional freedoms in order to be safe from terrorists.

"In my opinion, it makes no more sense to launch an assault on our civil liberties as the best way to get at terrorists than it did to launch an invasion of Iraq as the best way to get at Osama bin Laden," Gore said.

In both cases, Gore said, the administration has "recklessly put our country in grave and unnecessary danger."

He also said the administration still has "no serious strategy" for domestic security - charging that there aren't sufficient protections in place for ports, nuclear facilities, chemical plants and other key infrastructure.
 
I agree as well. I would question, however. if the dems are any better. Each administration each govewrnment seeks more power and uses any crises as an excusre to make a power grab. Bush is no different than any other pol. The only difference I see between the Republiccans and Democrates is that one wants the cops to run our lives, the other wants social workers and lawyers.
 
Algore's dribble

Quote: In both cases, Gore said, the administration has "recklessly put our country in grave and unnecessary danger."

As I recall, terrorists put our country in grave and unnecessary danger; Bush responded.

Gore can play spoiler if he desires; he's a washout.
 
I'm sure under Gore we would have seen a whole new era of freedom in America. I bet he would have proudly handed the first newly manufactured, perfectly legal MG to a happy gun owner right at the White House as part of the new found respect he has for our rights! :rolleyes:
 
either way you slice it, despite his wording, Gore has a valid point.

shrub has done little if anything to prevent or slow the rapid errosion of the rights of the citizens of the us.

unless he does something drastic soon, i don't think he stands a snowflake's chance in a blast furnace of staying in office come election time.

just my $0.02
 
Bush has done exactly what the Democrats would have done. Gore is telling the truth, everything that has been legislated regarding terrorism is ineffective at best, and infringing on liberty at worse.

Bush = Republican = Democrat = Gore.

There really is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats.

There is only the illusion of choice, and that is all that is necessary to keep 99% of people happy...
 
Gore is boring and irrelevant. He is also right.
(nope, I don't support Gore)

Not to take away from what our guys are doing over there, or to even say that they have failed. But after all of this warring, we have yet to lay our hands on Bin Laden or Saddam.... which is what I see as the main objective in terms of public/world support and "mission(s) accomplished" - for now.
Having captured or killed those two by now would have turned this whole thing around.

With that said, Bush really has not accomplished anything, but maybe I missed something?

I'll certainly give him credit for doggedly pursuing the remaining terrorists.
That does not mean that I like the current style of the internal U.S. strategy.
Most of it does not work, or is applied foolishly, and what should be done is not being done.
Security surrounding your average air-freight pad/facility is a good example. Or better yet, keeping them out of the country in the first place might be helpful. I am not at all concerned with the civil liberties of those who are here on visas, especially those who are missing or should not have been let in to begin with.
 
How many here have had their freedoms violated under the Patriot Act?



Wenger
 
*********************************************************
How many here have had their freedoms violated under the Patriot Act?



Wenger
*********************************************************
When the freedoms of one of us is violated, we are all victims, we have all had our rights deminished. Ask the 500 or so secret prisoners in Cuba if they feel their rights have been violated. You will soon see the FBI use the terrorist acts and powers against triditional U.S. criminals. It will be the RICO act all over again. Their stated intent for a law is rarely the way it is used. It can and some day soon will be used against us..."the gun nuts", the NRA, Etc.
 
The loss of the protection of the 4th Amendment is a violation of my rights. Therefore, my rights have been violated under the Patriot Act. So have yours. So have everyone else's. Any other questions?
 
"In my opinion, it makes no more sense to launch an assault on our civil liberties as the best way to get at terrorists than it did to launch an invasion of Iraq as the best way to get at Osama bin Laden," Gore said.
Although more apropos, you will never see him say
"In my opinion, it makes no more sense to launch an assault on our civil liberties as the best way to get at terrorists than it did to launch gun control as the best way to reduce crime," Gore said.
 
Since my wallet, lawyer, and medical records have lost privacy, and because I can not buy a house or car without going through the PA I would say I am a victim.
 
I know people who are going to vote Democrat in the upcoming election because they think the Dems will repeal the Patriot Act.

I verymuch doubt that. Democrats LOVE big government power; big government is part of their platform.

So we'll see, I guess.
 
How do you think Gore would have responded to the events on Sept. 11th?
Probably in Clinton-style, a firm condemnation, amd maybe a few Tomahawks.
Yes, we can all agree that we have lost some ground with Patriot, but at the same time I think that the Dems would have done the same. Personally, I think they would have found it the perfect opportunity to slide in new gun control measures "for the public good"....
 
Personally, I think they would have found it the perfect opportunity to slide in new gun control measures "for the public good"....

Yep, wasn't some nut legislator just railing about renewing the AWB before they "fall into the hands of the terrorists".

Ya, know, I thought that looked like Osama Bin Laden legally buying that
AR 15 at the last gun show.... :rolleyes:

Gimmee a break!
 
As Archie Bunker would say: That's the black calling the kettle pot. (Or words to that effect.)

Gore is right for the most part. What he isn't saying is more important than what he is saying. Reality is that Gore's boss dropped the ball long ago when the first shots of the WoT were fired starting in 1993.
So you can conclude that the Clinton administration's (Gore included) complacency in dealing with OBL and company when all this first started set into motion the chain of events we are having to deal with today. Gore's comments are misplaced.
 
Well, I don't have as high of opinion of GW as I once did.
But who is Gore to talk?
If it were up to him, no one in this country would own a personal firearm.
Is that right not outlined by the Constitution?
Hypocrite.
 
goon,

I dont think you can back this statement up:

If it were up to him, no one in this country would own a personal firearm.

If you can provide anything official to support the idea that Gore is on record saying he is against personal ownership of firearms, please post it so that I may be enlightened.

I am not sticking up for Gore here, I dont like him one bit, but don't think he has gone as far as you say.
 
I saw his speech on LINK TV and he was pretty good. This man is far better off without his advisors and speechwriters. I think it is about time for someone to speak up for civil rights. Civil rights are closely linked to second amendment rights. I have always wondered why the ACLU has never sued to the US Government on behalf of DC residents who do not have the tight to bear arms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top