Senators Putting Nation in Harms Way

[Tomcat1066]

No... the U.S. Constitution is not "irrelevant" and I did not imply that it was; I did, however, say that foreign wars, particular the one ongoing now, may require some federal efforts which may encroach on some small personal liberties.

Right, because personal liberties are nothing so long as the "greater good" is served?

Soldiers in Iraq are giving their lives for this war, while a few herein seem to find strong objection that...heavens... their library books or federal tax forms might be observed by another federal agency! Bear in mind that the Patriot Act may indeed have saved numerous lives this far, but some see that as too much to accept.

I thought we went into Iraq because Saddam had WMDs. And what I swore to protect when I served was the Consitution. I personally would have been just FINE with people objecting to illegal search and siezures if this had been going on with Congressional approval when I served.

I see objection to the Patriot Act as ungreatful and petty, but you are well within your rights to be so.

And I see support of it to be an endorsement of tyranny. So what's your point?

I recall my parents talk about life during WWII; Dad in Europe while Mom served as Nurse; many things limited in quantity by Federal Government to support war effort, coupons given out for food, severe lines for everything, limits on electricity as most of it went to factories, some cities had lights out and curfews due to no law enforcement personnel... Now, with the current War on Terror, a few folks protest that perhaps... perhaps... they may be denied some perceived liberty!

We're not talking about my right to buy extra milk here, we're talking about specific parts of the Constitution that are made essentially null and void. And the arguement you give is basically a "we're at war". If we lose what makes our nation great, what's the point in even fighting anymore?

Tom

 

[Camp David]

Right, because personal liberties are nothing so long as the "greater good" is served?

Let me know when you get a chance how many "personal liberties" the 3,000 dead of 09/11/01 have when you get a chance will you?

Yes personal liberties are important; vital in fact. That is what this nation is founded upon. Life, however, is more important. While you can pontificate about your Bill of Rights while you still have you life, doing it without your life becomes difficult!

But I see a little abridgment of some perceived liberty you might -- might -- be denied causes so much "woe is me" attitude that perhaps such things as national security would be beyond your comprehension.

I admire your fiery defense of liberties and in most cases I would stand by your side in like defense. In the case of the Patriot Act, however, you are embellishing the issue by blowing it completely out of proportion. Not only does it not impact you, more than likely it will not impact anyone you know.

 

[Biker]

Let me know when you get a chance how many "personal liberties" the 3,000 dead of 09/11/01 have when you get a chance will you?

Yes personal liberties are important; vital in fact. That is what this nation is founded upon. Life, however, is more important. While you can pontificate about your Bill of Rights while you still have you life, doing it without your life becomes difficult!

But I see a little abridgment of some perceived liberty you might -- might -- be denied causes so much "woe is me" attitude that perhaps such things as national security would be beyond your comprehension.

I admire your fiery defense of liberties and in most cases I would stand by your side in like defense. In the case of the Patriot Act, however, you are embellishing the issue by blowing it completely out of proportion. Not only does it not impact you, more than likely it will not impact anyone you know.

Life is more important than Liberty? I have a tat on my right shoulder that reads: "You Can't Enslave A Free Man
You Can Only Kill Him"

I could not disagree with you more.

Biker

 

[Gordon Fink]

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

We await word of Abdullah al-Muhajir’s execution …

<Personal insu;lt removed by Art>


~G. Fink

 

[Justin]

I'd consider continuing the compilation of logical fallacies, but honestly, I have to get some work done today.

 

[Tomcat1066]

Let me know when you get a chance how many "personal liberties" the 3,000 dead of 09/11/01 have when you get a chance will you?

Let me ask you this: What point do their deaths serve if we use that as an excuse to circumvent that which makes us what we are?

Yes personal liberties are important; vital in fact. That is what this nation is founded upon. Life, however, is more important. While you can pontificate about your Bill of Rights while you still have you life, doing it without your life becomes difficult!

But I see a little abridgment of some perceived liberty you might -- might -- be denied causes so much "woe is me" attitude that perhaps such things as national security would be beyond your comprehension.

National security? When you destroy that which makes this nation what it is, then there IS no true security. We are not a nation that should blindly follow what the elected officials say "because it's for our own good". The fact that ANY liberty might -- might -- be denied is reason enough to question the motives behind this "law".

I admire your fiery defense of liberties and in most cases I would stand by your side in like defense. In the case of the Patriot Act, however, you are embellishing the issue by blowing it completely out of proportion. Not only does it not impact you, more than likely it will not impact anyone you know.

A fact you keep forgetting is that I personally have said repeatedly that I don't have to be personally impacted by something to perceive it as wrong. I wasn't impacted by many of the gun control measures that have since sunset since I wasn't purchasing a firearm at that time. It was still wrong. Hell, for that matter Tienamen Square didn't impact me, but it was still wrong.

It is not the intention of the Patriot Act that I question. Some measure did need to be taken, and I agreed with that. However, they overstepped Constitutional bounds to do it. There are no safegaurds to personal liberty when a simple law can circumvent them. Even if this one doesn't ever impact me in any way, who's to say the next BS law like this won't?

Tom

 

[Camp David]

It is not the intention of the Patriot Act that I question. Some measure did need to be taken, and I agreed with that. However, they overstepped Constitutional bounds to do it...

TOM: I have sad news for you... the Constitution is overstepped every day! Don't be surprised because it has been overstepped every day since it was written!

In the interest of a variety of purposes and needs, the express words of the Constitution are overstepped... some of these are small and some are large...

I, just like you, am dismayed about this, but differing from you, apparently, am wise enough to recognize that some of these oversteps are for the greater good. Some are not.

Let's just say I look at each overstep of the Constitution and see if it is one I can bear or one I protest! The Patriot Act is one I can bear.

Let me ask you a question...let's surface a small example...hear me out here... the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights gives us express purpose to carry a firearm, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights...YET.. muncipalities across the nation, including my own area, have taken it upon themselves and instituted a process whereby individuals wishing to exercise the 2nd Amendment have to apply to our local court, via a complicated "Concealed Weapon Permit" application in order to gain permission to carry a firearm in a concealed fashion, even though I see such a right guaranteed in the Constitution. I would see this as a serious overstep of the Constitution; this is one I do not support, but have no choice but to follow. See my point? In the case of the CCP, I seriously object...

In the case, however, of the Patriot Act, I see it as a little enough overstep, on behalf of national security, as to accept it...

I hope this clarifies my position...

I have bigger fish to fry in being upset about the Federal Government as to focus on those!

 

[Biker]

Camp David
What are you going to focus on and when? Remember: If it can be done to 'them', it can be done to you and what is legal for you to own or do today may not be tomorrow.
Biker

 

[Tomcat1066]

You know, I had a lengthy post to respond but it seems obvious that unless it directly impacts you in some way, you really don't care. Especially if it's for the "greater good", in which case you do care...and support it.

Sounds like some of the arguements I hear for gun control.

Before you question my wisdom, keep in mind that the EXACT same arguement can be made for the AWB, the Brady Bill, and any other gun control legislation that comes up. Will you be saying the same thing?

I don't know about you, but I have drawn my line in the sand. Anything contrary to the Constitution will be fought with every ounce of my being. I swore to support and defend it, and my discharge didn't release me from it. As such, I focus on the constant attacks, not just the ones that annoy me.

Just because something has been going on is no excuse to not fight it. But I guess that's just not the case for you.

Tom

 

[Camp David]

Camp David
What are you going to focus on and when?

Biker: Don't label me anti-constitution; I stand with you on most issues... thye Patriot Act, however, seems a little enough affair to overlook...

"What am I going to focus on"? Egregious issues of affront to the Constitution I strongly oppose, as I am sure you too oppose. "When"? Whenever I can. Yet if every issue which has some impact to the U.S. Constitution would herald alarm, they we would be yelling daily.... I put out the fires I can... yet the burning goes on...

 

[Zundfolge]

TOM: I have sad news for you... the Constitution is overstepped every day!

I seem to remember my mother asking me about if all my friends jumped off a bridge...

Let's just say I look at each overstep of the Constitution and see if it is one I can bear or one I protest! The Patriot Act is one I can bear.

Let me ask you a question...let's surface a small example...hear me out here... the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights gives us express purpose to carry a firearm, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights...YET.. muncipalities across the nation, including my own area, have taken it upon themselves and instituted a process whereby individuals wishing to exercise the 2nd Amendment have to apply to our local court, via a complicated "Concealed Weapon Permit" application in order to gain permission to carry a firearm in a concealed fashion, even though I see such a right guaranteed in the Constitution.

Excellent example. Gun control and restrictions on how/when/why American citizens can carry self defense firearms have done two things; 1) Restricted our freedom and 2) Made us less safe.

So just as I believe the tangled web of gun laws across the US have done far more to harm the citizenry than to prevent crime and we should have Vermont/Alaska carry from sea to shining sea, I also believe that the Patriot Act does more harm than good.

 

[benEzra]

In the case, however, of the Patriot Act, I see it as a little enough overstep, on behalf of national security, as to accept it...

I hope this clarifies my position...

This thread reminds me of an exchange in Robert Bolt's classic play A Man for All Seasons about Sir Thomas More, who eventually lost his head for putting personal integrity above political expediency:

Bolt, in a familiar passage, has More say when assailed by his son–in–law with the charge that he would give the devil the benefit of law:

MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?

ROPER: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

MORE: Oh? . . . And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you—where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? . . . This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast—man’s laws, not God’s—and if you cut them down . . . d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? . . . Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

If we allow the existence of a villain to justify the dismantling of constitutional protections, the day may well come when we or our descendants may need those protections . . . and they won't be there, because we approved of their being dismantled "for a good cause."

The threat to my descendants over the next two centuries that would result from the abrogation of the 4th Amendment is much greater than the temporary threat to me from Al Qaida. I say we fight Al Qaida, but save the 4th Amendment also.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Oh? . . . And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you—where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? . . . This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast—man’s laws, not God’s—and if you cut them down . . . d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? . . . Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

BenEzra +1

I just turned on Limbaugh. He is going ballistic about "the defeat of the Patriot Bill".

I hope so.

 

[Biker]

Rush will be just fine after he pops a few Oxys.
Biker

 

[Harve Curry]

The threat to my descendants over the next two centuries that would result from the abrogation of the 4th Amendment is much greater than the temporary threat to me from Al Qaida. I say we fight Al Qaida, but save the 4th Amendment also.

Well said benEzra,
That sentence can as well be applied to the 2nd Amendment and the entire Bill of Rights.
thank you,