What's wrong with the patriot act?

[SouthernBelle82]

The "they did it too!" line is so pathetic and lame. When you take the job of president it's to protect and defend the Constitution from foreign and domestic enemies.

Who cares how "little" he has taken comparatively to other Presidents who have slaughtered people's rights in the name of a war? Seriously, the "But they did it worse!" defense didn't even work when I was a kid.

 

[WRL]

It's the truth. Anybody who disagrees that we have to protect ourselfs from our own government---simply does not know what freedom is IMO.

Welcome abord

This government gives us our freedoms, and the troops and veterans who've fought for it, step foot out of the US and see a real tyrannical government..

the patriot act doesn't infringe on the Constitution it tears down the walls that forbid agencies like the CIA from sharing information with the FBI, it's common sense, not hyped hysteria, which had it been done pre-9/11, that disaster would have never happened. The FBI had files on some of the 9/11 hijackers, and because of the artificial walls constructed during the Clinton administration, well 3,000 Americans we're viciously slaughtered.

 

[WRL]

Who cares how "little" he has taken comparatively to other Presidents who have slaughtered people's rights in the name of a war? Seriously, the "But they did it worse!" defense didn't even work when I was a kid.

So are you of the opinion then, that under no circumstance, like during wartime, the government needs to take no extra steps to acknowledge the reality of the increased danger to it's citizens. It's that kind of attitude that got 3,000 slaughtered in the first place. It's that kind of attitude that ignored the first WTC attacks, Kohbar towers, the embassy bombings the near sinking of the USS Cole, the bury our heads in the sand strategy directly lead to 9/11 and if we revert back to it, we will still face the same problems, only ten fold.

 

[Damocles]

This government gives us our freedoms, and the troops and veterans who've fought for it, step foot out of the US and see a real tyrannical government..

the patriot act doesn't infringe on the Constitution it tears down the walls that forbid agencies like the CIA from sharing information with the FBI, it's common sense, not hyped hysteria, which had it been done pre-9/11, that disaster would have never happened. The FBI had files on some of the 9/11 hijackers, and because of the artificial walls constructed during the Clinton administration, well 3,000 Americans we're viciously slaughtered.

The Government doesn't "give" us our freedoms. We protect our own freedoms that aren't given, but recognized by, the government. If we are not jealous of those rights they are not likely to be present for long.

 

[Damocles]

So are you of the opinion then, that under no circumstance, like during wartime, the government needs to take no extra steps to acknowledge the reality of the increased danger to it's citizens. It's that kind of attitude that got 3,000 slaughtered in the first place. It's that kind of attitude that ignored the first WTC attacks, Kohbar towers, the embassy bombings the near sinking of the USS Cole, the bury our heads in the sand strategy directly lead to 9/11 and if we revert back to it, we will still face the same problems, only ten fold.

It is the "let's give up our freedoms for little or no gain" attitude that hands the win to those who wish to take from us those freedoms. The PATRIOT act goes far further than simply allowing the FBI to share intelligence with the CIA. Seriously, much further.

 

[WRL]

The "they did it too!" line is so pathetic and lame. When you take the job of president it's to protect and defend the Constitution from foreign and domestic enemies.

Would you consider Abraham Lincoln a great President?

He suspended Habeas Corpus, for American's, Bush hasn't even done that to terrorists.

Was Franklin Delenor Roosevelt a great President? Mr. Social Security, Mr. New deal, Mr Nazi exterminator, he threw all Germans and Japanese into 'internment' camps.

Bush made sure the FBI and CIA where communicating together, and he's Hitler.

 

[SouthernBelle82]

The troops haven't protected our Constitution since WWII. Good grief. Fighting against so-called "Commies" don't count either. Me thinks someone didn't read all of the Constitution and the "Patriot Act." You're supposed to get a lawyer but the "Patriot Act" is a loophole to where they don't have to give you one. Whoopsie! I just passed criminal justice with an A this last term and I think you need to join that class at your local college.

This government gives us our freedoms, and the troops and veterans who've fought for it, step foot out of the US and see a real tyrannical government..

the patriot act doesn't infringe on the Constitution it tears down the walls that forbid agencies like the CIA from sharing information with the FBI, it's common sense, not hyped hysteria, which had it been done pre-9/11, that disaster would have never happened. The FBI had files on some of the 9/11 hijackers, and because of the artificial walls constructed during the Clinton administration, well 3,000 Americans we're viciously slaughtered.

 

[SouthernBelle82]

So if you ever find yourself in a situtation where you need a lawyer and aren't given one then don't come crying to me. You're supposed to protect the Constitution not cry like a baby. No wonder Hitler was able to take over Germany after WWI. I always used to wonder how it could happen and now I know.

So are you of the opinion then, that under no circumstance, like during wartime, the government needs to take no extra steps to acknowledge the reality of the increased danger to it's citizens. It's that kind of attitude that got 3,000 slaughtered in the first place. It's that kind of attitude that ignored the first WTC attacks, Kohbar towers, the embassy bombings the near sinking of the USS Cole, the bury our heads in the sand strategy directly lead to 9/11 and if we revert back to it, we will still face the same problems, only ten fold.

 

[Damocles]

Would you consider Abraham Lincoln a great President?

He suspended Habeas Corpus, for American's, Bush hasn't even done that to terrorists.

Was Franklin Delenor Roosevelt a great President? Mr. Social Security, Mr. New deal, Mr Nazi exterminator, he threw all Germans and Japanese into 'internment' camps.

Bush made sure the FBI and CIA where communicating together, and he's Hitler.

I would consider him one of the worst violators of the Constitution.

And I already made clear that the camps the FDR put people into was also a violation.

The suspension of Habeas Corpus being "normal" in times of war doesn't mean I have to think it is right. It is in times of war that we must be extra vigilant of our rights, not less so.

The difference between both of those wars is there was a clear ending that will never be part of a "War on Terror". The "War on Terror" will go on and on and on... do we never reclaim the protections that are ours by, as our founders put it, Divine Right?

And again, the PATRIOT Act goes far further than simply removing the idiotic wall between intel agencies.

 

[SouthernBelle82]

Yes Bush has done that. He's done worse than Lincoln as well by torturing people and then whoopsie letting them go. LOL! Bush also tortures children. I guess you like that sort of thing. When are you going to be waterboarded? Are you going to since you're defending it?

Would you consider Abraham Lincoln a great President?

He suspended Habeas Corpus, for American's, Bush hasn't even done that to terrorists.

Was Franklin Delenor Roosevelt a great President? Mr. Social Security, Mr. New deal, Mr Nazi exterminator, he threw all Germans and Japanese into 'internment' camps.

Bush made sure the FBI and CIA where communicating together, and he's Hitler.

 

[SouthernBelle82]

It's time of war where we have these laws and rules to follow. Not for when we're safe and happy go lucky.

I would consider him one of the worst violators of the Constitution.

And I already made clear that the camps the FDR put people into was also a violation.

The suspension of Habeas Corpus being "normal" in times of war doesn't mean I have to think it is right. It is in times of war that we must be extra vigilant of our rights, not less so.

The difference between both of those wars is there was a clear ending that will never be part of a "War on Terror". The "War on Terror" will go on and on and on... do we never reclaim the protections that are ours by, as our founders put it, Divine Right?

 

[WRL]

The Government doesn't "give" us our freedoms. We protect our own freedoms that aren't given, but recognized by, the government. If we are not jealous of those rights they are not likely to be present for long.

That's lovely and philosophical, but in the real world it's not that way. Our form of governance does give us our freedoms, and protects them, just as the Taliban Government did not give and took peoples freedoms.

We as individuals can do little to 'protect' our freedoms. The people of this country have been reduced to shotguns and handguns, do you really think we have any chance of overthrowing anything more than a radio station for 3 hours?

And there is a huge difference between war time powers and permanent powers. These extra security precautions always go with the wars. I'm jealous of nothing, and have had nothing taken from me, including my life.

 

[Damocles]

That's lovely and philosophical, but in the real world it's not that way. Our form of governance does give us our freedoms, and protects them, just as the Taliban Government did not give and took peoples freedoms.

We as individuals can do little to 'protect' our freedoms. The people of this country have been reduced to shotguns and handguns, do you really think we have any chance of overthrowing anything more than a radio station for 3 hours?

And there is a huge difference between war time powers and permanent powers. These extra security precautions always go with the wars. I'm jealous of nothing, and have had nothing taken from me, including my life.

The problem with that is the "War on Terror" is a war without time limitation or any real solid ending.

Also, without a formal declaration we shouldn't even be fighting a "War" on an Adjective.

 

[WRL]

So if you ever find yourself in a situtation where you need a lawyer and aren't given one then don't come crying to me. You're supposed to protect the Constitution not cry like a baby. No wonder Hitler was able to take over Germany after WWI. I always used to wonder how it could happen and now I know.

See these are the wild claims I refer to. I've never been to Pakistan, I've got no ties to terrorists, and even the terrorists get to go before a judge and face facts and evidence, perhaps not at the pace of civilian peace time courts, but with a degree of justice their victims never enjoy. However once more look at the historical record, did we try the Nazi's as we captured them, no we had the Nuremberg trials after the war, and then tried them. Bush has trumped that and given terrorists days in court before the end of the war.

 

[Damocles]

The "War on Terror" is much like the war in "1984" by Orwell. All it will take is one corrupt individual to make it the never ending war so that "emergency" powers become permanent.

There was a reason that Congress could, and is supposed to, declare war. It is just another wise protection put there by the Founders.

 

[WRL]

It is the "let's give up our freedoms for little or no gain" attitude that hands the win to those who wish to take from us those freedoms. The PATRIOT act goes far further than simply allowing the FBI to share intelligence with the CIA. Seriously, much further.

It, like most all other war time measures probably won't last past the war, even though 98% of it is common sense.

 

[Damocles]

It, like most all other war time measures probably won't last past the war, even though 98% of it is common sense.

When will the "War on Terror" end? Can you give me one victory that will end that? There is no defined ending for a "War on <insert favorite adjective or noun here>". Common sense tells me that this is a fallacy. Winning in Iraq doesn't end "terror", nor will a victory in Afghanistan.

 

[WRL]

I would consider him one of the worst violators of the Constitution.

And I already made clear that the camps the FDR put people into was also a violation.

The suspension of Habeas Corpus being "normal" in times of war doesn't mean I have to think it is right. It is in times of war that we must be extra vigilant of our rights, not less so.

The difference between both of those wars is there was a clear ending that will never be part of a "War on Terror". The "War on Terror" will go on and on and on... do we never reclaim the protections that are ours by, as our founders put it, Divine Right?

And again, the PATRIOT Act goes far further than simply removing the idiotic wall between intel agencies.

Well I 100% disagree, I'd say he's been one of the most passive, with home front war time powers, President we've ever had, and the war on terror is going to be a long war, but there will come a time when it's not so military intensive, and therefore the level of danger will decrease as will these laughable what you consider 'outrageous' laws.

 

[Beefy]

When will the "War on Terror" end? Can you give me one victory that will end that? There is no defined ending for a "War on <insert favorite adjective or noun here>". Common sense tells me that this is a fallacy. Winning in Iraq doesn't end "terror", nor will a victory in Afghanistan.

It is not an accident that "The War on Terror" was named as such. The vague nature of the name allows our political officials to pretty well do whatever they want in the name of this war, and that is going to include our next president, which will more than likely be a Democrat.

I somehow doubt Larry will be applauding all the liberties our next president will take, unless, by some miracle, that president has an (R) by his name.

 

[WRL]

When will the "War on Terror" end? Can you give me one victory that will end that? There is no defined ending for a "War on <insert favorite adjective or noun here>". Common sense tells me that this is a fallacy. Winning in Iraq doesn't end "terror", nor will a victory in Afghanistan.

See it's clear from your framing of the question that you don't understand the fight we're in, we are not in a traditional battle, we are not in a battle against a verb or noun, we are at war with a radical element of Islam that has been breed into the culture of a great part of the middle east, and the only way to defeat that enemy is to change the culture, to change the schools that are raising children this way, the state run media's that re-enforce that thought process, the region has to move towards moderation and we now, through President Bush's actions, have a real chance to see the only possible, or suggested solution to winning the war on terror.