Senators Putting Nation in Harms Way

[Camp David]

So, let me get this straight. Suspending parts of the Constitution is acceptable during wartime?

Why do you falsely interpret the Patriot Act as suspending the Constitution? There are measures needed, during wartime, to fight the enemy. Gathering intelligence is one measure of fighting the war. What the Patriot Act enables is simply one branch of government able to access records from another branch.

I say again, is there a HighRoad member that has been personally impacted by the Patriot Act? Assumed impacts don't count! Anybody at all?

Didn't think so.

A question for you.... A strict reading of the U.S. Constitution, 2nd Amendment, allows you to bear arms. But airlines prohibit your rights inherent under the 2nd Amendment. Are you upset? Protest? Why not?

 

[Stickjockey]

...its use today is necessary during the current War on Terror. I don't see it as an abridgement of a right. During WWII there were abridgments of the Bill of Rights made necessary by the war in Europe.

The two are not even remotely equivalent. WWII was a definitive combat action, with firmly delineated belligerents and firmly demarked objectives. Everyone was pretty sure it was a temporary thing. WOT is more like the War on Drugs, or the War on Poverty, where it's a never-ending struggle. If we're to keep the Patriot Act in place only untiol the War on Terrorism is won, then we're going to be under it for a long, long time.

 

[mbt2001]

The FED is not the arbitor of rights.

The idea of the patriot act is something to the affect of "We are giving up our rights for more security." YOU CAN'T GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS!

The patriot act is crap. I am saying it is crap. Forget the law, allow americans to carry openly (WHICH IS OUR RIGHT) and if the terrorists or the mafia or China or anyone else want to start something, bring it on.

 

[Camp David]

The two are not even remotely equivalent. WWII was a definitive combat action...

Our neighbor, a U.S. Marine, is home on a short break from Iraq... he would disagree strongly on your assessment. The War on Terror involves "definitive combat action" to a high degree...

 

[Biker]

Proof? I see he was and still seems to be a Puerto Rican... was he nationalized?

I just did a quick google and found, with no trouble (799 affirmations), that Padilla is indeed an American citizen. He may be a scumbag, but he's an American scumbag entitled to certain rights. If his can be abused, so can yours.
Then again, I think that you're more interested in defending the indefensible rather than in speaking and finding the truth.
If Jorge Bush and company deems it to be beneficial to the country, then it must be. Right?
Biker

 

[Stickjockey]

I would contend that the war in Iraq involves definitive combat action. The War on Terror is a much more complex enterprise, in which combat is one aspect.

Please thank him for his service.

 

[Camp David]

He may be a scumbag, but he's an American scumbag entitled to certain rights.

I gather you'd also defend the terrorists of 09/11/01 with the same zeal and condemn the president for action against them becuase that is what your liberal leftist handlers tell you to do...

Abdullah al-Muhajir is an illegal enemy combatant who was arrested in May 2002 and deserves to be held, not charged, since he is a terrorist. He's no American in my book.

 

[Biker]

I gather you'd also defend the terrorists of 09/11/01 with the same zeal and condemn the president for action against them becuase that is what your liberal leftist handlers tell you to do...

Abdullah al-Muhajir is an illegal enemy combatant who was arrested in May 2002 and deserves to be held, not charged, since he is a terrorist. He's no American in my book.

Before you start calling people liberals, you might want to look up some of their old posts. I was a hard-core Repub until about five years ago. I voted for Bush in 2000 but finally left the party after Bush pushed his illegal amnesty program shortly after he was elected. That was the proverbial straw.
And you gather wrong about the 9/11 boys-they weren't Americans and weren't entitled to the protections provided by our constitutions. Finally, I'm glad that "your book" doesn't count when determining who is and who isn't an American.
BTW, I voted 3rd Party last election. Not that it's any of your business.
Signed
A Conservative Biker

 

[migoi]

Not to enter in this little..

squabble but according to this link and my personal knowledge, Puerto Ricans are indeed citizens of the United States. They might not have the full approval for citizenship from Camp David but since 1917 they have been.

Of course I've never personally known anyone affected by Jim Crow laws or apartheid either but I'm against them based on the concepts contained within them.

migoi

 

[TexasRifleman]

I used to think rick reno was just stupid, but now I think he's a shill spreading propaganda online for the feds.

Either that, or you can't see the obvious sarcasm in Ricks post.

It's hard to tell online sometimes, we need a "sarcasm" smiley face.....

 

[Tomcat1066]

Why do you falsely interpret the Patriot Act as suspending the Constitution? There are measures needed, during wartime, to fight the enemy. Gathering intelligence is one measure of fighting the war. What the Patriot Act enables is simply one branch of government able to access records from another branch.

I don't have a problem with one branch communicating with another, but there's more to the law than that. It gives the DOJ the authority to deny due process to American citizens. Regardless of how you feel about that person, they are still citizens and should be given their rights. Those rights need to be given to all, or else there is a chance they will be denied to YOU when you need them.

I say again, is there a HighRoad member that has been personally impacted by the Patriot Act? Assumed impacts don't count! Anybody at all?

Didn't think so.

I wasn't impacted by the Brady Bill either. Does that mean I should be ok with that piece of trash legislation? By the logic you seem to be giving, I shouldn't.

A question for you.... A strict reading of the U.S. Constitution, 2nd Amendment, allows you to bear arms. But airlines prohibit your rights inherent under the 2nd Amendment. Are you upset? Protest? Why not?

As a matter of fact, I am a bit upset. I think any CCW holder should be allowed to carry on a plane. If a couple of CCW holders were on those planes on 9-11, THEN there would have been a different outcome.

Tom

 

[BuddyOne]

Feeding Trolls

If the thread begins with a post by the usual suspects, as in this case, you can be reasonably certain that it will illuminate little. The Reloading threads are pretty sincere, though, and they generally include people of good faith who express themselves without so much frothing at the mouth (mind?).

See ya there,

Buddy

 

[tube_ee]

As a matter of fact, I am a bit upset. I think any CCW holder should be allowed to carry on a plane. If a couple of CCW holders were on those planes on 9-11, THEN there would have been a different outcome.

Tom

About 9/11, I don't know, but planes are private property. Their owners have the right to restrict their passengers from carrying.

--Shannon

 

[Manedwolf]

I was a hard-core Repub until about five years ago. I voted for Bush in 2000 but finally left the party after Bush pushed his illegal amnesty program shortly after he was elected. That was the proverbial straw.
And you gather wrong about the 9/11 boys-they weren't Americans and weren't entitled to the protections provided by our constitutions.

You probably still ARE a conservative Republican. It's the Republicans who aren't. The spend-like-a-drunken-sailor, corporatist, big-government, imperialist neo-cons have taken over the bus.

And the 9/11 people were mostly Saudi nationals, but the bin Laden family was flown out and home the next day at taxpayer expense, without being questioned, because they and the Saudi royals are our frrrrriends...right? They're George's friends, at least.

Like grandfather (Prescott) like grandson, I guess.

 

[Harve Curry]

What difference does it make if you have not been effected by bad law which is obviously Unconstitutional?

How can you trust a goverment that does'nt trust you? That restricts and infringes on your rights.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights is the litmus test to which all legislation, introduced or otherwise, is and should be measured by.

I recall the President called an end to the war after our soldiers took Bagdad.
That must have some technical legal meaning.
Now I guess our soldiers are engaged in a "police action". Correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyone who wants to trade safety for freedom is a fool.

 

[Manedwolf]

I recall the President called an end to the war after our soldiers took Bagdad.
That must have some technical legal meaning.
Now I guess our soldiers are engaged in a "police action". Correct me if I'm wrong.

Remember, it was always made clear that the war was to eliminate [Strike]WMDs[/Strike] [Strike]Saddam[/Strike] [Strike]terrorists[/Strike] [Strike]insurgents[/Strike] ....ENEMIES OF FREEDOM. FREEDOM IS ON THE MARCH, STOP ASKING QUESTIONS! (cue nationalistic imagery and jingos)

That's about right, isn't it?

 

[defjon]

....I like your style, kid.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Abdullah al-Muhajir is an illegal enemy combatant who was arrested in May 2002 and deserves to be held, not charged, since he is a terrorist.

And you know he is a terrorist because he was convicted by which court?

~G. Fink

 

[Harve Curry]

....I like your style, kid.

Who you callin kid

 

[taliv]

a letter from my congressman

December 14, 2005

Dear Tom,

Knowing of your concerns over
provisions in the PATRIOT Act that
infringe on free speech and privacy
rights, I wanted to let you know that I
voted against H.R. 3199, legislation that
would make the PATRIOT Act permanent.

I understand how important it is to
protect the liberties that Americans
enjoy, even as we take precautions against
terrorism. H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT and
Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act,
did not find the necessary balance between
liberty and precaution. The bill makes 14
of 16 expiring provisions in the PATRIOT
Act permanent. Only two of the most
controversial provisions -library record
and "sneak and peek" searches - will
sunset in 2009. Congress deliberately
included sunset provisions in the PATRIOT
Act when it passed in response to the 9/11
terrorist attacks so the law could be
reviewed for abuses. At a minimum that
wise decision which would require periodic
review and oversight by Congress should
have been kept in the law. But more
importantly, Congress should have
exercised proper oversight and repealed
provisions which are not needed. You may
know that I have voted for amendments that
would have curtailed the more egregious
provisions such as "sneak and peek"
searches, searches of library records and
roving wiretaps.

While I supported passage of the
House bill earlier this year it was with
the hope that a House/Senate conference
committee would return a better bill that
would protect our freedoms even as it
provided an effective response to the
threat of terrorism. Unfortunately my
optimism was not rewarded. That is why I
voted for a motion to allow the conference
committee three more months to get the
bill right. But when that motion failed
on a party-line vote, I could not support
the underlying bill and voted no on final
passage of H.R. 3199.

I know you share my disappointment in
passage of a bill which does little to
protect us from terrorism but poses
serious threats to individual freedoms.
You may be assured that I will insist on
strong oversight by Congress of the
Justice Department's implementation of
this law and will continue support
moderation or repeal of those provisions
which infringe the rights and liberties of
all Americans.

Stay in touch,
/s
BART GORDON
Member of Congress

 

[psyopspec]

Our neighbor, a U.S. Marine, is home on a short break from Iraq... he would disagree strongly on your assessment. The War on Terror involves "definitive combat action" to a high degree...

And I'm an army veteran who disagrees with yours. What's your point? We wouldn't even be discussing this if someone had only thought to get violent video games out of the hands of those hijackers.

 

[rick_reno]

I used to think rick reno was just stupid, but now I think he's a shill spreading propaganda online for the feds.

It's obvious Camp David is.

Idakfan,

I confess, I'm not only stupid but I am federal/Republican shill.

Read up on satire kid, maybe you'll get a clue what is going on. If you miss it, don't worry - others get it.

 

[ceetee]

What if people were being arrested for simply stating their opinions because those opinions were contrary to the "war effort"?

Sure, those are extreme examples...

Tom

Actually, they're not far from the truth. We've all seen the words "treason" and "traitor" used to describe anyone that speaks out against the "war effort" in Iraq.

We've seen this here, and in the halls of Congress. It's just a short step from labelling someone a traitor, to trying him (or her) for treason...

 

[Camp David]

And you know he is a terrorist because he was convicted by which court?

The Court of Semper Fidelis... (Marines that captured him).

We await word of Abdullah al-Muhajir's execution...I hear his virgin's are awaiting his passing!

 

[Warbow]

Incidentally, what do you know about an American citizen named Padilla who was kept locked up for a few years without being charged with anything?

The PATRIOT ACT has nothing to do with Jose Padilla. There are no provisions in PATRIOT that allow for the detainment of US citizens.

And the 9/11 people were mostly Saudi nationals, but the bin Laden family was flown out and home the next day at taxpayer expense, without being questioned, because they and the Saudi royals are our frrrrriends...right? They're George's friends, at least.

The FBI reviewed and investigated all of those flights and interviewed any persons of interest before they were allowed to depart. And the relatives of Bin Laden were on a September 20th flight, they were not "flown out and home the next day."