THE PATRIOT WAR

New York Post ^ | 3/01/04 | KRIS W. KOBACH

[kattracks]

March 1, 2004 -- FOREIGN terrorists have an unwitting ally in the American Left. Several liberal interest groups are waging a campaign to unilaterally disarm our government. If they succeed, it could hobble the United States in the War on Terror and eventually exact a toll in American lives.

[goldstategop]

The PATRIOT Act hasn't harmed a single ordinary American. But anything to bash President with, including downplaying and trivializing 9-11 will do for the Democrats. You can nearly forget the murder of 3,000 Americans was caused in no small part by the fact the FBI and the CIA could not pool intelligence and share resources to track down and thwart terrorists in our country. Hence the reason for the PATRIOT Act. Then again the true facts and the need for this law matter little to the American Left - it counts on the American people having a short memory.

[MEG33]

We have plenty of "Constitutional Scholars" on FR that act like the Patriot Act has taken away their rights.It is more paranoia than reality.

[skip2myloo]

Well, here's just one example of the kind of pro-Patriot Act stuff I read commonly:

"If delayed notice under Section 213 of the Patriot Act (the Left calls it "sneak-and-peak") is such a threat to civil rights, then Kerry has some explaining to do: It's been around for decades, and it is routinely used in fighting garden-variety crime."

If "It's been around for decades, and it is routinely used...," then just exactly why do we need Section 213, or the Patriot Act at all ??

No one ever answers that fundamental question for me satisfactorily, resolving an apparent dichotomy.

If the Patriot Act changes nothing, then what just is it's utility and purpose ??

Rather than telling me what it didn't change, I need the supporters of the Patriot Act to delineate specifically what it DID change, explain their view of why the Jack-Booted Thugs need these "new" tools, and then provide their view of why their own specific citations DO NOT infringe the rights of citizens ??

I DID NOT say "ordinary" citizens. Jose Padilla, for example, is not an "ordinary citizen," but - he IS a U.S. citizen.

[Trickyguy]

The PATRIOT Act hasn't harmed a single ordinary American.

Don't fly very much, do you?

[tbpiper]

I'd say the onus is on you to deliniate specificly why you think it's a bad idea.

[skip2myloo]

No, I do not accept that burden - the onus is on the supporters of the Patriot Act to justify the specific provisions they believe are necessary to combat terrorism.

This nation survived just fine for more than 200 years, through our own Civil War, through two World Wars and a Cold War without needing the Patriot Act. I want to see the supporters' justifications for what provisions of this odious act they believe we must have now.

[Paleo Conservative]

The PATRIOT Act hasn't harmed a single ordinary American.

Don't fly very much, do you?

The Patriot act has absolutely nothing to do with aviation.

[skip2myloo]

"The Patriot act has absolutely nothing to do with aviation."

What exactly does it have to do with, and why do we need it ??

[MEG33]

I suggest you look back in history and see what both Lincoln did during the civil war and Roosevelt did in WW2 to suspend certain rights.We have not reached that point.The difference here is the War on Terror is not like any other war as there is no one country to defeat and accupy so its end is not in sight.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case to decide if the President has the right to declare Padilla and Hamdi,a citizen caught in Afghanistan enemy combatants(News max story dated 2/21 in latest issue)Google and you will find more on this.

[MEG33]

Google "The Patriot Act".There is a brief outline at the beginning to let you see what it sets out to do,some of it funding.Of course you can read the entire act if you wish.

[garylmoore]

effort meant to convince the nation that the Patriot Act infringes upon the civil liberties of ordinary Americans.

---

I think that Americans know that this is political hogwash.

[skip2myloo]

Don't try to use the acts of Lincoln and FDR as justification for the Patriot Act. That is very weak debate technique that resolves nothing.

Cite meaningful precedent if you can, but these cases are not useful to your argument because many others believe what they did also was unconstitutional and hardly serves to bolster your own support for the Patriot Act.

While I too share the view that the acts of Abe and FDR were unlawful, at least it can be argued (and has been) that they were acting (at least loosely) under the provisions of Constitutional authority; specifically:

Article I, Section 9, Clause 2: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

My own view is that Hamdi is an enemy combatant because he was in Afghanistan, and he knew he was bearing arms against fellow Americans. I also believe Johnny Jihad should've been treated as an enemy combatant, but the sympathy factor was too high, and he was afforded full Constitutional guarantees for a fair trial.

Padilla, on the other hand was in the U.S. when he was detained. Padilla should not have to fight all the way to the SCOTUS to seek remedy of his situation.

"...Google and you will find more on this."

Don't send me on any wild goose chases with regard to these specific cases, nor any others, that's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about the necessity, the relevancy and the constitutionality of the Patriot Acts.

With as open a mind as possible, I want to see, and discuss, some positive justification for specific elements of Patriot Act that its supporters believe are essential to combat terrorism.

Is that asking too much ?? Surely, you've analyzed the Act and can support your own view of it's efficacy with precision. Or, is your faith blind regarding it's legitimacy and based solely upon public officials' general advocacy for it ??

[MEG33]

Sending you to Google is simply expedient because I can't link.All you have to do is type in the Patriot act and see what it does .It is lengthy and I am not handy with links,sorry.

You will find also many arguments pro and con under "enemy combatants".I love google and find it a wonderful educational tool as one can get all sides.Of course there are more liberal articles than conservative.

[dirtboy]

If "It's been around for decades, and it is routinely used...," then just exactly why do we need Section 213, or the Patriot Act at all ??

To extend delayed notification searches to suspected terrorist activity.

[verity]

I have a recurring nightmare that the American electorate will have a collective brain fart and elect Kerry. Sigh!!

[tbpiper]

This nation survived just fine for more than 200 years, through our own Civil War, through two World Wars and a Cold War without needing the Patriot Act.

'Scuze me, but there's another war going on right now that's a good bit different from the ones you mentioned and requires some new tools to fight it. What specfic provision of the act are you at odds with?

[skip2myloo]

I'm still looking for SPECIFIC justification, y'all are just giving me the same ol' generalist mantra.

Instead of bolstering it's advocacy for the Patriot Act, it seems this article defeats it's own objective by proving we don't need at least Section 213, because we already have, and have had, the authority for Sneak 'n Peek searches for decades.

If you have a law that says you can/can't smell the flowers, you don't need more laws that say you can/can't smell the red flowers, and the yellow flowers and the blue flowers, etc., etc.

[MEG33]

I like it because it improves our ability to find the bad guys who would harm this country.Look at the Act to see why.You seem unwilling to look at the Act itself..Do your own homework.

[xusafflyer]

I'll give you one.

Under Patriot Act, financial institutions are REQUIRED to gather simple shareholder/company/charity info (Name, DOB, SSN or EIN, Address) in order to prevent terrorists, criminals, terrorist groups pretending to be a charity in Florida, etc. from funnelling money through the system.