STOP THE CHEAP SHOTS AT THE PATRIOT ACT

New York Post ^ | 12/05/03 | PETER KING & ED KOCH

[kattracks]

December 5, 2003 -- THE brutal attacks of 9/11 brought home to the American people what should have been clear to our nation's leaders years before that fateful day: We are at war with Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their radical Islamic terrorist allies throughout the world and within our borders.

[11th Earl of Mar]

So the new law allows the feds to monitor the telephone calls of a person who changes cell phones each week, presumably to avoid detection?

The new law makes it easier for the feds to track whether a person has been viewing certain sites on the web, like "HowtoBlowUpADam.net" and "MakingYourOwnNuclearWeapon.com"?

And the new law, God forbid, makes it easier for the FBI and CIA to share information on terrorism with each other?

Sheesh! Time to stock up on freeze-dried food and move to the mountains!

[InvisibleChurch]

imagine xxxillary with the patriot act in her back pocket

[mysterio]

Ashcroft himself has at one time defined terrorism as "scaring people with phantoms of lost liberty." I guess that means anyone who criticizes the "patriot" act must be a terrorist.

[ARepublicanForAllReasons]

If the provisions cited in the article threaten our Constitutional Rights when used against terrorists, weren't they already a threat when they were used against mobsters and serial killers? Or are you against that too? How about guns in the hands of cops? Every year, dozens of innocents people are killed by cops with guns. Guess that means we have to disarm the police and repeal all laws, since any law could conceivably be a tool of abuse, and in fact are abused every day.

Not to dismiss lightly your concerns, but freedom is not absolute, it's always a balance between giving the state enough power to protect our freedoms but not so much power that government itself becomes an oppressive force. Hey, if the ACLU hasn't been able to find a single instance of abuse of the Patriot Act, then what in the world are you talking about? These 'the sky is falling' arguments don't convince or even move me. Sure, if Hillary were elected she would abuse the Patriot Act. That's a good reason not to vote for Hillary, but not a valid argument against measures that I believe are necessary to hunt down America's enemies.

Heck, I would go even further. How about severely restricting immigration, at least for the duration of the WoT, with special attention to male immigrants of middle eastern origin? Seems to me the libertarian Right has a lot of growing up to do. The time may well come when we have to put up with a lot more restrictions on our freedom than the Patriot Act contains. Does anyone remember WWII? An anthrax attack or 'dirty' nuclear bomb, possibly within the technological reach of terrorists right now, could kill hundreds of thousands and render a city like NYC or Wash DC uninhabitable for generations. The 911 attacks, simple by comparison and of relatively limited damage, sent the stock market tumbling and inflicted severe emotional trauma on our nation. Seeing NYC or DC destroyed would result in a cry for draconian measures that even I would dread. The best way to avoid a scenario like that is to allow the FBI to check library records, tap the phones and computers of suspected terrorists and, hopefully, prevent a recurrence of 911. I too would love a smaller government, but more than that I want to see my country safe from attack.

[mysterio]

So basically, you are only capable of the "you silly tinfoil hatter" argument? I am silly because I fear that the government will abuse a huge expansion of power that is specifically prohibited in the Bill of Rights? Alright, then, good day.

[mysterio]

Yes, I disagree with the skirting of any of the Bill of Rights for any reason. I think the first ten amendments are very clear. Chipping away at them with tricky legislation is unacceptable for any reason.

[OESY]

Scrutiny of enforcement actions is so intense, including judicial and media oversight, that the probability of abuse is minimal and offset by homeland security benefits. That is not to dismiss your concern regarding the tactics of, say, the last administration or if an ambitious and ruthless former first lady should somehow win the White House, but argues instead for an alert citizenry rather than abandonment of the Patriot Act.

[11th Earl of Mar]

If you can't admit that before 9/11 we had holes in our system large enough to fly a 747 through, then 'good day' to you too.

[mysterio]

Judicial oversight is severely limited by the act. That's part of why I am against it. Basically, as long as the government tells the judge it followed the rules, the judge can't reject the warrant. That's what the "shall" means. And as for media oversight, I don't trust the media to oversee anything.

[mysterio]

Even with the new restrictions on liberty, I certainly doubt that a motivated terrorist can be thwarted. I wish to see America protected, too. I feel that if our liberties are revoked, the terrorists win a much more decisive victory than if they knock buildings down. I don't want to see the terrorists knock down our Constitution.

[mysterio]

Additionally, I feel that the best way to fight terrorism is exactly what Bush is doing in the middle east. I think stabilizing the region and taking the fight to the terrorists is far more effective than an assault on our liberties.

[Badray]

"Paranoids, conspiracy theorists, and Democrats seem to, however."

Are you saying that there is no possibility for any abuse and we never have to worry about misuse by a clinton type administration? Ever?

If you are saying that, then answer this:

Are you a fool, or a liar?

[11th Earl of Mar]

I just don't believe the 'violating the Bill of Rights' blanket argument.

Liberals used the same argument in the Clinton impeachment. There was a book purchased as a gift to/or/from Bill to/or/from Monica. [??] Starr was looking for links between the two people that could prove the relationship was more than what Bill testified to under oath.

When Starr sought the book store records, the libs went nuts, citing First Amenment rights violations.

So in other words, they would not object to checking records to see if he bought her something from Victoria's Secret or Macy's, but a book gift is different and is protected by the First Amendment?

I dodn't buy those arguments then and I still don't buy them here.

[Publius6961]

STOP THE CHEAP SHOTS AT THE PATRIOT ACT

Why?
If it throws the mentally-challenged into hissy fits, it must be effective.

If there were just two "citizens" in America, and no bad people, the Constitution would be not only useless, but a waste of paper.
Most of the mentally-challenged have no concept of "means" and "ends", and their relative importance.

[biblewonk]

It is a war that threatens our national survival. Yet, listening to an increasingly shrill chorus of political voices, Americans could almost conclude that the real threat to our country comes not from bin Laden and al Qaeda but John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act.

This is what you are supposed to think but it is a flaming lie. On 9/12 a dozen box cutter armed muslims would have been thrown out the window on a plane loaded with grandmas from Des Moines. They took their best shot and it was a one of a kind. They've been impotent ever since.

[Publius6961]

Say what you want, but the current war does not threaten out national survival. It is really more like a large police action.

Say what you want, but this is the essence of the difference between the ignorant and the informed.

This is in the long run an attack of our survival in our current form.

You will excuse us if most of us are not willing to allow it to happen to prove a point.

[ARepublicanForAllReasons]

I disagree with the skirting of any of the Bill of Rights for any reason.

Ok, fine. But show me which Amendment is being violated, and how. This is the substance that I always find lacking in criticism of the Patriot Act. Any law limits your freedom in some manner. That's precisely why laws are enacted, so that people won't be free to engage in certain behaviors. But that's a really lame argument, unless you believe we shouldn't have any laws at all. Show me how the potential abuse of government looking at your library records, or even your internet habits, is more dire than the scenario I outlined in my first post. And remember that the gov't could already do most of this stuff before the Patriot Act was even passed, if you were a suspected of criminal behavior. Why shouldn't gov't be able to deal with terrorists the way it deals with criminal syndicates?

[petro45acp]

Here here!

The Bill of Rights is the highest law of the land, guaranteeing preexisting rights, not permitting them. Any and all legislation that infringes, limits, or abrogates those rights is patently unconstitutional. That neither our elected officials nor the electorate understand this shows the sorry state of governance in this country.

As far as homeland security goes, a single or several armed citizens on those planes, insisting that their flight NOT take a detour through the WTC, would have rendered the entire proposition moot.

[ARepublicanForAllReasons]

This is in the long run an attack of our survival in our current form.

I absolutely agree with you. Seems that everyone understood this the day after 911. What has transpired to make so many go back to sleep?

[11th Earl of Mar]

I just don't agree with the views of you and the ACLU that airport metal detectors are a violation of our Constitutional rights.