Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by interventor:
When its an overseas incoming call from a know al-Qaeda number or Baluchistan or Waziristan, **** straight. Pre-patriot Act allows the action, as long as reported to FISA court 48 hours after the fact. Label this troll chow.


Trade your freedom for Security? I Thought that is what America fought for,FREEDOM!



"Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither" -- Benjamin Franklin
Last edited by Jan55
Brings a tear to the eye...but wait!!!!!

When this hokey clip was filmed, how many times had the World Trade Center been attacked first with car bombs, then two aircraft, resulting in almost 3,000 casulties?????? NONE

How many times had times had the US Pentagon been attacked and hundreds killed????? NONE

How many people had been captured trying to get on a commercial air liner with a bomb in their shoe, who confessed that their sole purpose was to blow up the aircraft? NONE

Seems like we don't live in Mayberry anymore................
quote:
Originally posted by alacharger:
Brings a tear to the eye...but wait!!!!!

When this hokey clip was filmed, how many times had the World Trade Center been attacked first with car bombs, then two aircraft, resulting in almost 3,000 casulties?????? NONE

How many times had times had the US Pentagon been attacked and hundreds killed????? NONE

How many people had been captured trying to get on a commercial air liner with a bomb in their shoe, who confessed that their sole purpose was to blow up the aircraft? NONE

Seems like we don't live in Mayberry anymore................



So, In your line of thinking, you agree, that we must give up our freedom for security?
Our Dangerous Times


Today’s conservatives are eager to trade freedom for security.

by James Bovard


On June 23, the New York Times and other papers revealed that the Bush administration has been vacuuming up records passing through a Belgian hub for international banking. According to Treasury Undersecretary Stuart Levey, the United States government may have conducted “hundreds of thousands” of warrantless searches of personal financial data.

Some government lawyers doubt the legality of the program, and administration officials told the Los Angeles Times that it had only been “marginally successful” at going after al-Qaeda.

No matter. The exposé set off perhaps the biggest boom in conservative press-bashing since Watergate.

The White House quickly re-labeled the surveillance program the “Terrorist Finance Tracking Program” and with near unanimity, the Right fell into line. President Bush angrily declared, “the disclosure of this program is disgraceful ... for people to leak that program, and for a newspaper to publish it, does great harm to the United States of America.” Vice President Cheney asserted that the Times article “made it more difficult for us to prevent attacks in the future” and “will enable the terrorists to look for ways to defeat our efforts.”

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_07_31/feature.html
quote:
Originally posted by pba:
quote:
Originally posted by alacharger:
Brings a tear to the eye...but wait!!!!!

When this hokey clip was filmed, how many times had the World Trade Center been attacked first with car bombs, then two aircraft, resulting in almost 3,000 casulties?????? NONE

How many times had times had the US Pentagon been attacked and hundreds killed????? NONE

How many people had been captured trying to get on a commercial air liner with a bomb in their shoe, who confessed that their sole purpose was to blow up the aircraft? NONE

Seems like we don't live in Mayberry anymore................



So, In your line of thinking, you agree, that we must give up our freedom for security?


What freedom have we given up? I haven't given up any. I can still go and do and say as I always have...because I'm a law abiding citizen. I can get in my car and drive to Oregon this morning if I want, and no one will try to stop me. I can hop a plane to South Africa if I want, and no one will stop me. I can organize a rally or a march or a protest, and no one will stop me. I can do any number of acts that I've been able to do all my adult life with no change....except to know that my government is more vigilant about the security of this nation against terrorists....something that has been neglected for too many years.
quote:
Originally posted by alacharger:
Brings a tear to the eye...but wait!!!!!

When this hokey clip was filmed, how many times had the World Trade Center been attacked first with car bombs, then two aircraft, resulting in almost 3,000 casulties?????? NONE

How many times had times had the US Pentagon been attacked and hundreds killed????? NONE

How many people had been captured trying to get on a commercial air liner with a bomb in their shoe, who confessed that their sole purpose was to blow up the aircraft? NONE

Seems like we don't live in Mayberry anymore................



it's harder to get a driver's license than to buy a gun. The left, in the incongruous company of most police chiefs, want to regulate gun purchases and ownership to try to be sure that criminals have less easy access to weapons.

The right...probably more for a concern for votes than anything else...is adamently against any further controls on gun ownership, saying that it would erode personal freedoms guaranteed by the constitution.

But...the same 'Right' had few if any objections to the "Patriot Act" which does limit personal freedom. The republican Right likes the constitution when it refers to their needs.
Its not freedom for security. US built coastal defense artillery positions along the coast using formerly private land for 150 years.

During WWI, WWII and Cold War, the US monitored radio frequencies for foreign intelligence operatives in the US. Quite successfully as Venona papers and roundup of all german operatives after 7 Dec 41 proved. Phone calls from suspected areas now usually come into the country via satellite on radio waves. Same process and same reason.
quote:
Originally posted by pba:
quote:
Originally posted by alacharger:
Brings a tear to the eye...but wait!!!!!

When this hokey clip was filmed, how many times had the World Trade Center been attacked first with car bombs, then two aircraft, resulting in almost 3,000 casulties?????? NONE

How many times had times had the US Pentagon been attacked and hundreds killed????? NONE

How many people had been captured trying to get on a commercial air liner with a bomb in their shoe, who confessed that their sole purpose was to blow up the aircraft? NONE

Seems like we don't live in Mayberry anymore................



it's harder to get a driver's license than to buy a gun. The left, in the incongruous company of most police chiefs, want to regulate gun purchases and ownership to try to be sure that criminals have less easy access to weapons.

The right...probably more for a concern for votes than anything else...is adamently against any further controls on gun ownership, saying that it would erode personal freedoms guaranteed by the constitution.

But...the same 'Right' had few if any objections to the "Patriot Act" which does limit personal freedom. The republican Right likes the constitution when it refers to their needs.


Boy, are you wrong about police chiefs wanting to regulate gun purchases and ownership. That's a load of cow chips. In fact, it's a sordid tale fronted by the media and a few radical Police chiefs who are so out of touch with street issues it's amazing they even know how to put a uniform on. Police chiefs generally and rank and file officers specifically are NOT for gun contol. There are a very few notable exceptions, but especially here in the south, cops just don't agree with gun control.

What freedoms are being limited by the Patriot Act? I think you are confusing "freedoms" with "rights", and even then, I don't see that there are any major issues there. If you are not a terrorist, you don't have any worries...if you are, you better start hiding.
quote:
Originally posted by Alphonse:
The fourth Amendment does protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. Now the questions is, What's unreasonable?


Indeed, what's unreasonable when you are the target of terrorist attacks?

It's unreasonable to smack a neighbor with a shovel because he's playing the radio too loud, but it ain't unreasonable if he comes into your yard with a knife and threatens to stab you.
quote:
Originally posted by alacharger:
quote:
Originally posted by pba:
quote:
Originally posted by alacharger:
Brings a tear to the eye...but wait!!!!!

When this hokey clip was filmed, how many times had the World Trade Center been attacked first with car bombs, then two aircraft, resulting in almost 3,000 casulties?????? NONE

How many times had times had the US Pentagon been attacked and hundreds killed????? NONE

How many people had been captured trying to get on a commercial air liner with a bomb in their shoe, who confessed that their sole purpose was to blow up the aircraft? NONE

Seems like we don't live in Mayberry anymore................



it's harder to get a driver's license than to buy a gun. The left, in the incongruous company of most police chiefs, want to regulate gun purchases and ownership to try to be sure that criminals have less easy access to weapons.

The right...probably more for a concern for votes than anything else...is adamently against any further controls on gun ownership, saying that it would erode personal freedoms guaranteed by the constitution.

But...the same 'Right' had few if any objections to the "Patriot Act" which does limit personal freedom. The republican Right likes the constitution when it refers to their needs.


Boy, are you wrong about police chiefs wanting to regulate gun purchases and ownership. That's a load of cow chips. In fact, it's a sordid tale fronted by the media and a few radical Police chiefs who are so out of touch with street issues it's amazing they even know how to put a uniform on. Police chiefs generally and rank and file officers specifically are NOT for gun contol. There are a very few notable exceptions, but especially here in the south, cops just don't agree with gun control.

What freedoms are being limited by the Patriot Act? I think you are confusing "freedoms" with "rights", and even then, I don't see that there are any major issues there. If you are not a terrorist, you don't have any worries...if you are, you better start hiding.




Charger,To start with this government was the one that ignored all the warnings that allowed the 9/11 attacks in the first place. They cut the budget and called al Qaeda a low priority. Rice and Rumsfeld ignored our own intelligence reports, as well as warnings from other governments, and a special vist and warning by George Tenet himself, so don't tell me how "Vigelent" this government is.

Creating a Big Brother Police State is no replacement for real National Security. It is to cover for their incompetence and squash dissent to their policies. Like all police states eventually anyone who complains about any policy, War, Economic, Environmental, Corruption, is deemed an enemy of the state. The people lose power over their government. Governments are only made up of people. All positions of authority and power need oversight, checks and balances. The famous quote says it all, "Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely." Our Fore Fathers knew history and it's why they wrote these protections into the Constitution. That's why we have safe guards to protect the innocent from an over zealous government

There is no need to create a police state to keep us safe. Freedom is as important as safety. What is safety without freedom for eventually the loss of freedom will lead to the loss of safety. Freedom is what keeps our govenrment honest and it's people safe. What kind of freeodm do we have when we are under constant surveilance and the govenrment films and makes files on it's citizens? That's not real freeodm.

Filming - Files, the PATRIOT ACT. The FBI wants to know what you read, and the Librarian is forbidden by law to tell you that your being investigated y the FBI. How do innocent people defend themselves? This isn't TV where the Police only investigate the criminals and don't make mistakes. They can come in and search your house without a warrant and not tell you for a while after.

We have laws now on the books where they can search your house and wire tap your phone, if they show a judge just cause. That's all that is stopping them.

The Military Commissions act can classify you an enemy combatant, like they did to Jose Padilla and you have no right to a lawyer or Habeas Corpus, which the right to challenge your detention in Court, basic Human right granted back around 1200 sometime.

It also legalizes torture.

They dropped the terrorism charges against Padilla, after holding and abusing him for a number of years. There is no case. And is not the only one. Just look at all these innocent people being released from jail all the time, cleared by DNA. What happens when they end your right to Due Process?

Most major cities have cameras on government buildings inside and out.

We saw the abuse of files and covert actions by the FBI under Hoover and the CIA against peace groups and anyone who disagreed with government policy. It was discovered under the Church Committee hearings in 1975 that the CIA had operated in the US to influence opinions and policies, as well as other operations. Some of it's operations were given in secret testimony and not disclosed to the American people. Frank Church died of cancer a few years after the hearings.

Even now look how it is getting more difficult to get a drivers license and they want us to have a National ID Card and more files. Think that's going to stop terrorists who can easily get phony ID? Now you are fined for not producing your papers when stopped by a cop, even though they just call it in on their computers.

They have road blocks for "our safety" to protect us from drunken driving when even some law enforcement officials have said they are not necessary.


These laws are in place to squash dissent to their policies. The reason we have these freedoms is to keep safe guards over our government and prevent it from being highjacked by special interests that will use it for their own purposes. Like a war, based on lies, for their own profits and power and cover for their corruption. That was the real reason for the fall of the Soviet Empire. Look at what life was like under the Soviet Block, ease dropping, cameras, files, secret police and prisons, torture, citizens spying on each other. It's police state prevented whistle blowers from exposing and ending corruption that ate away the society from within.

Simple police work and international cooperation has captured and done more damage to al Qaeda then all of Bush's wire tapping and PATRIOT ACT laws. It was reported that out of 5,000 phone taps less then 10 people aroused suspicion for further investigation. A very bad ratio for the money and time spent. Even the FBI and other intelligence agencies complained they were being inundated with useless information that was hampering real investigations.

We are being attacked becasue of our policies in the Mideast. Bin Laden and others have constantly said they are trying to drive out Western contol and domination of their region. The West ha dominated the region, for the oil, overthrowing governments, suppressing democratic movements and supporting repressive dictators and regimes since WW1. These crimes are hidden from the American public by the corporate media. The same people who lied us into the Iraq War and continue to lie.

Sure, you have no problems now if your a good little citizen and don't question or complain but hey are building the apparatus of a Police State around us. In the future if you complain about the quality of your life as it deteriorates or when they bring back the draft and start taking your kid to send him or her to Iraq or Afghanistan or Iran or where ever to fight their war for oil and profits you can be deemed "an enemy of the state" if you complain. How about if they use your town as a Nuclear waste dump and tell you you have no rights. That's what happens in police states with no rights. Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Spain, the Soviet Bloc.

Look how corporate America controls you life. Took your job and sent it over seas.

During WW2 in Nazi Germany if a worker complained about low wages and high prices he was sent to a concentration camp. They thought nothing of just shipping workers from one factory to another in another city, uproot you family and all because the government said that's where they needed you.

Generations before us fought and died to have these safe guards in place to protect us from government abuse, which are now unwilling to stand up for and give the same rights to your children. Claim to be a patriot yet willing to give up rights our Fore fathers fought and died for. Those willing to give up these freedoms are the real cowards.

If this government can't protect our safety and our freedoms then we will get competent people who will.
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
quote:
Originally posted by Alphonse:
The fourth Amendment does protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. Now the questions is, What's unreasonable?


THAT is a question I would LOVE to see answered!!!



Excuse me!!! Hello! Hello! If Bush can break one ammendment to eavesdrop or to get into your mail or e-mail, what makes you think he can't break the fourth amendment or any other amendment in the constitution? You people are so dense, that's why I have to go back two to three years to older websites to get you up to date as to what's going on, cause you forgot what happened yesterday. Gee. Study up. Pay attention. OH, your question is answered!!!
Last edited by Jan55
quote:
Originally posted by Alphonse:
The fourth Amendment does protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. Now the questions is, What's unreasonable?



Excuse me!!! Hello! Hello! If Bush can break one ammendment to eavesdrop or to get into your mail or e-mail, what makes you think he can't break the fourth amendment or any other amendment in the constitution?
quote:
Originally posted by pba:
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
quote:
Originally posted by Alphonse:
The fourth Amendment does protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. Now the questions is, What's unreasonable?


THAT is a question I would LOVE to see answered!!!



Excuse me!!! Hello! Hello! If Bush can break one ammendment to eavesdrop or to get into your mail or e-mail, what makes you think he can't break the fourth amendment or any other amendment in the constitution? You people are so dense, that's why I have to go back two to three years to older websites to get you up to date as to what's going on, cause you forgot what happened yesterday. Gee. Study up. Pay attention.


PBA... I actually agree with you on that statement! Whether you trust me or not, lol.. Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
quote:
Originally posted by pba:
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
quote:
Originally posted by Alphonse:
The fourth Amendment does protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. Now the questions is, What's unreasonable?


THAT is a question I would LOVE to see answered!!!



Excuse me!!! Hello! Hello! If Bush can break one ammendment to eavesdrop or to get into your mail or e-mail, what makes you think he can't break the fourth amendment or any other amendment in the constitution? You people are so dense, that's why I have to go back two to three years to older websites to get you up to date as to what's going on, cause you forgot what happened yesterday. Gee. Study up. Pay attention.


PBA... I actually agree with you on that statement! Whether you trust me or not, lol.. Big Grin


Thanks, its about time! Smiler
quote:
Originally posted by pba

You people are so dense, that's why I have to go back two to three years to older websites to get you up to date as to what's going on, cause you forgot what happened yesterday. Gee. Study up. Pay attention.


PBA,
The website posted on this topic here had most of the census gathered on it some five years ago. I don't see the problem with you using an old site either, if others can too.
quote:
Originally posted by pba:
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
quote:
Originally posted by pba:
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
quote:
Originally posted by Alphonse:
The fourth Amendment does protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. Now the questions is, What's unreasonable?


THAT is a question I would LOVE to see answered!!!



Excuse me!!! Hello! Hello! If Bush can break one ammendment to eavesdrop or to get into your mail or e-mail, what makes you think he can't break the fourth amendment or any other amendment in the constitution? You people are so dense, that's why I have to go back two to three years to older websites to get you up to date as to what's going on, cause you forgot what happened yesterday. Gee. Study up. Pay attention.


PBA... I actually agree with you on that statement! Whether you trust me or not, lol.. Big Grin


Thanks, its about time! Smiler


LOL!!! Guess so Smiler
quote:
Originally posted by just saying:
quote:
Originally posted by pba

You people are so dense, that's why I have to go back two to three years to older websites to get you up to date as to what's going on, cause you forgot what happened yesterday. Gee. Study up. Pay attention.


PBA,
The website posted on this topic here had most of the census gathered on it some five years ago. I don't see the problem with you using an old site either, if others can too.


Thank you so much for pointing this out.I've said from day one on here. its do as I say not as I do bunch or The Bush Bunch!lol Smiler
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
quote:
Originally posted by pba:
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
quote:
Originally posted by pba:
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
quote:
Originally posted by Alphonse:
The fourth Amendment does protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. Now the questions is, What's unreasonable?


THAT is a question I would LOVE to see answered!!!



Excuse me!!! Hello! Hello! If Bush can break one ammendment to eavesdrop or to get into your mail or e-mail, what makes you think he can't break the fourth amendment or any other amendment in the constitution? You people are so dense, that's why I have to go back two to three years to older websites to get you up to date as to what's going on, cause you forgot what happened yesterday. Gee. Study up. Pay attention.


PBA... I actually agree with you on that statement! Whether you trust me or not, lol.. Big Grin


Thanks, its about time! Smiler


LOL!!! Guess so Smiler


its not a republican or democrat thing!! Its about us America!! We got Crooks on both sides!
police state n. A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people.

I don't see that this has happened. There are no rigid or repressive controls over me, or any other law abiding citizen. Ignoring terrorist warnings started way before George Bush took office....there were a half a dozen warnings while Clinton was in office....Bush barely had his feet on the ground before we were hit 9/11/01.

I'll fully agree with you that absolute power corrupts absolutely. And that there is a system of checks and balances to protect the INNOCENT from abuse of governmental power . But I submit that the government in place at this time has NOT crossed that line which would place it as being "absolute power", or abusive, or the checks and balances would have already fell into place and interrupted the government's policies and actions.

No honest man need fear being in the spotlight. Only the guilty flee when none pursue. I still have every bit of freedom I have ever had, No government edict has reduced my rights or freedoms afforded under the Constitution. There has always been a process for your phone to be tapped, and your house and property searched, and it has always been by showing a judge "just cause" (actually probable cause is the correct term).

Jose Padilla is a terrorist. He's been charged with terroristic crimes. His being incarcerated has been upheld by several different courts and judges. The Military Commissions Act is just that....an act, and it doesn't apply to Padilla.

I took my son to the license office last year...we got a license the first time we were there...it took almost a half hour, including the test. All we had to produce was a birth certificate and a school enrolment paper....essentiall less items than I had to have when I got a license in '74 or '75. BTW, driving is a privilige, not a right. Nowhere in any Constitution does it say you have a right to drive on the highways. State law says you must have your driver license with you when driving, so ya gotta have it, or pay the fine. Just like you have to stop at stop signs, got to have insurance and a tag.

What Bin Laden and other despots in the Middle East have to say about why they are attacking the US is not worth the electrons it takes to transmit it, or the paper it's written on. They're liars of the first order, and the truth or any semblance of honor is not in them. They have declared what is to them a "holy war", with the complete domination of the world as their goal.

The safeguards you mention in your closing are still in place. The US is still the greatest country in the world, and is STILL of the people, by the people and for the people. If it were not so, you and I would not be able to have this debate. Unfortunately, paranoia seems to haunt a vocal portion of our population, and they see "conspiracy" at every turn.
quote:
Originally posted by alacharger:
police state n. A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people.

I don't see that this has happened. There are no rigid or repressive controls over me, or any other law abiding citizen. Ignoring terrorist warnings started way before George Bush took office....there were a half a dozen warnings while Clinton was in office....Bush barely had his feet on the ground before we were hit 9/11/01.

I'll fully agree with you that absolute power corrupts absolutely. And that there is a system of checks and balances to protect the INNOCENT from abuse of governmental power . But I submit that the government in place at this time has NOT crossed that line which would place it as being "absolute power", or abusive, or the checks and balances would have already fell into place and interrupted the government's policies and actions.

No honest man need fear being in the spotlight. Only the guilty flee when none pursue. I still have every bit of freedom I have ever had, No government edict has reduced my rights or freedoms afforded under the Constitution. There has always been a process for your phone to be tapped, and your house and property searched, and it has always been by showing a judge "just cause" (actually probable cause is the correct term).

Jose Padilla is a terrorist. He's been charged with terroristic crimes. His being incarcerated has been upheld by several different courts and judges. The Military Commissions Act is just that....an act, and it doesn't apply to Padilla.

I took my son to the license office last year...we got a license the first time we were there...it took almost a half hour, including the test. All we had to produce was a birth certificate and a school enrolment paper....essentiall less items than I had to have when I got a license in '74 or '75. BTW, driving is a privilige, not a right. Nowhere in any Constitution does it say you have a right to drive on the highways. State law says you must have your driver license with you when driving, so ya gotta have it, or pay the fine. Just like you have to stop at stop signs, got to have insurance and a tag.

What Bin Laden and other despots in the Middle East have to say about why they are attacking the US is not worth the electrons it takes to transmit it, or the paper it's written on. They're liars of the first order, and the truth or any semblance of honor is not in them. They have declared what is to them a "holy war", with the complete domination of the world as their goal.

The safeguards you mention in your closing are still in place. The US is still the greatest country in the world, and is STILL of the people, by the people and for the people. If it were not so, you and I would not be able to have this debate. Unfortunately, paranoia seems to haunt a vocal portion of our population, and they see "conspiracy" at every turn.




Charger,Don't forget, some people in Germany did support what the Nazi's were doing. I remember that some of the PATRIOT Act is secret!!!

Keep in mind these acts are the beginnings of the dismantling of the safe guards we have in place to protect us and the creation of a Police State that monitors all the time. We have no rights and as I tried to point out, the term "terrorist" grows in meaning as the government grows in power.Charger you say,
innocent people don't have to worry but when you break down the walls that protect innocent people we do have to worry.

Just because the government calls somebody a terrorist doesn't mean they are one. That's why we have safe guards. There was the case of the reporter in Oregon (I think it was) who was arrested and jailed and heavily interrogated because the FBI said they made a positive match of his finger print to the Madrid Train Bombing but the Spanish Police said they had their suspect but the FBI insisted. Luckily he still was able to get a hearing and prove his innocence. They are slowly breaking down these walls. Had he been designated an "enemy combatant" under the Military Commissions Act he would have no rights, like Padilla and subject to a military (Kangaroo) Court.

Here is a letter that appeared in the NY Times

To the Editor:

American citizens are not a herd of livestock owned by the government, subject to being branded, catalogued and inventoried to suit the convenience of bureaucrats.

If the government finds it inconvenient or inefficient not to have a complete dossier on my identity, health, voting status, wealth, educational accomplishments, social well-being or other personal characteristics, that's just too bad.

I am not its property.

Ed Stokes
Coronado, Calif., Feb. 22, 2006
Last edited by Jan55
Outside view: Patriot Act problems
by Bob Barr
As published by UPI
Friday, September 03, 2004 at 9:00 AM


WASHINGTON, Sept. 3 (UPI) -- This year's quadrennial Olympics, held in the birthplace of democracy itself, had, as do the Games every four years, much of Greek tragedy within their two week-run. Great triumph was overlaid with agonizing defeat; some expectations were dashed as others rose to unexpected heights.

An analysis of the United States' post-9/11 counter-terrorism efforts, too, reveals elements of Greek tragedy. Set on their heroic paths with the best and most noble of intentions, the tragic heroes of yore are being inevitably undone by flaws buried deep in their character.

To be sure, some of our efforts have been superb. We have managed to capture and interrogate large numbers of top al-Qaida operatives; severely constricting its ability to do us harm, at least in the short term. The Taliban can no longer play host to international terrorists in Kabul.

And, perhaps most important, people in the United States now consider foreign policy and national security to be top campaign issues, attention that is essential in a post-Cold War world filled with dangers known and unknown.

However, our government has made missteps on several occasions, and done so in the fashion of Greek tragedy.

Many of the counter-terrorism initiatives undertaken by the Bush administration might have been well-meaning, with noble purpose, but are inherently flawed in their lack of allegiance to basic U.S. constitutional principles. Like the classical, mythical hero, these inherent flaws make them pernicious to our freedoms and, ironically, ineffective in succeeding in their actual mission.

Consider, for instance, the USA Patriot Act. The act was drafted in record time in the days immediately following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, by top lawyers at a Justice Department, FBI and CIA all still reeling from those attacks.

The law was meant to update the power of the government to bring it in line with emerging technology; to provide added funds for translators, border security and emergency victim relief; and to assure the American people that something was being done. All of these praiseworthy things it did, hence why many of us in Congress voted for it (and still support much of it).

However, the law tragically emerged from the Congress saddled with provisions that simply went too far. Like a hero in a Greek tragedy reaching too far or flying too near the sun, provisions in the Patriot Act reach too far and undermine the essential principles on which our Constitution is founded -- the Bill of Rights.

One notorious provision, the "sneak-and-peek" provision, opens the door to the proliferation of secret search warrants that do not require the police to notify the person being searched until much after the fact. Certainly, the power to conduct secret searches in certain circumstances such as sensitive counter-terrorism cases should exist, as it did even prior to the Patriot Act, but it should be the exception to the rule and not vice versa. The Patriot Act does not strike this balance.

Another problematic provision allows the government to obtain secret intelligence court orders, without any probable cause linking the target of the order to suspected criminal activity. These orders can mandate the production of any "tangible thing" the government claims is "relevant" to some ongoing foreign intelligence or international terrorism investigation. However, this broad power should be checked by at least a modicum of real judicial review, and bear at least a minimal link to the person whose property or premises is being seized and searched. The act requires neither.

Not content with exercising the unprecedented broad powers it was awarded in the 2001 Patriot Act, the administration has moved aggressively to obtain even more power. A Son of Patriot Act has been drafted and floated on the Hill, and pieces of it have found their way into other legislative initiatives. The administration has fought vigorously to defeat any moves on the Hill -- even those sponsored by conservative Republicans -- that would in any way limit the Patriot Act; even amendments that would simply scale it back to what the administration said it wanted when the act was proposed.

Moreover, the administration has been using the Patriot Act to prosecute cases that have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. Local corruption, fraud and drug cases have all been the happy recipients of Patriot Act developed evidence.

Secret evidence, which candidate George W. Bush explicitly opposed in the 2000 campaign, has found resurgence in recent cases. In one case challenging the secrecy pervasive in the Patriot Act, the administration argued that even previously published U.S. Supreme Court decisions should be kept secret! While the federal court ordered the administration to declassify such information, the fact that any U.S. president would make such a claim reveals just how insensitive is this administration to long-standing notions of privacy and civil liberties.
http://www.bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=554
Just a point in fact, I personally don't support gun control.

I also know a number of people on the left &RIGHT that are also opposed to gun control and some are actually against any restrictions, feeling that if the government knows you have a gun, they can come and seize it at any time.

If they take your guns would that not be a freedom you just lost?


If Bush can break one ammendment to eavesdrop or to get into your mail or e-mail, what makes you think he can't break the fourth amendment or any other amendment in the constitution?
I am a hunter, and I have a pistol permit and pack heat on occasion. However, I do support a degree of gun control. For example: should everyone be able to own a nuclear weapon? If NO- should everybody be able to own stinger missils- if NO- should everybody be able to own a tank? if n--- well you get the drift.
Too many lies have been told (even by Moses) that certain peo;le ( I heard a lot about Al Gore) want to take away your guns. Poppy****! I think it would be good to limit fully automatic machine guns, etc. When I bought my 44 Magnum in Tenn, I had to wait 3 days for a background check. Was 40 years ago and I am still around (with my 44 mag). I think some limits are in order.
quote:
Originally posted by excelman:
I am a hunter, and I have a pistol permit and pack heat on occasion. However, I do support a degree of gun control. For example: should everyone be able to own a nuclear weapon? If NO- should everybody be able to own stinger missils- if NO- should everybody be able to own a tank? if n--- well you get the drift.
Too many lies have been told (even by Moses) that certain peo;le ( I heard a lot about Al Gore) want to take away your guns. Poppy****! I think it would be good to limit fully automatic machine guns, etc. When I bought my 44 Magnum in Tenn, I had to wait 3 days for a background check. Was 40 years ago and I am still around (with my 44 mag). I think some limits are in order.


Yes I see your point and I can agree with that.thanks for your input!

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×