STOP THE CHEAP SHOTS AT THE PATRIOT ACT

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

[teeman8r]

9-11 was not a product of too little restriction on the rights of individuals, but too much restrictions on those rights...

if people were allowed to carry on the planes, the terrorists would not have been able to gain control... blow up the planes perhaps, but not crash them into buildings and kill thousands.

the patriot act will give the government the "authority" to complete overlook restrictions placed on government by the bill of rights.

let the government work within the frame work of the constitution, not have the citizens infirmed by the government.

will people die, yes, the question is will they die free or slaves... i'd rather die free.

[sinkspur]

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?

Everything can be abused or misused.

As I said, worrying about things that haven't happened yet, and may never happen, is to make the good the enemy of the best, and is the hallmark of paranoia.

[sinkspur]

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.

No, but they're a bit paranoid, don't you think?

So far, I've seen no abuse of the Patriot Act.

[OESY]

And as for media oversight, I don't trust the media to oversee anything.

At the risk of weakening my own argument, I would agree with you except, when Republicans are elected, the "mainstream" media does attempt oversight. Unfortunately, then they often promote the fanciful as fact, and the citizenry must redouble its efforts to consult multiple sources to obtain a truthful accounting.

Thanks be to FreeRepublic, Praise the Lord, and Pass the Ammunition. Hooya Bush in 2004!

[Agnes Heep]

It should also be noted that library records were instrumental in tracking down such murderers as the Zodiac killer and the Unabomber.

Not to be pedantic or anything, but the Zodiac Killer was never captured (at least not officially; see this site for an interesting theory); and the Unabomber was captured only after his brother's wife noticed some stylistic similarities between the Unabomber's manifesto and Kaczynski's screeds. Library records had nothing to do with it.

I noticed these lapses in research because I happen to have a longstanding interest in Kaczynski. I can only imagine how many news articles I've read over the years that contained similar errors that went unnoticed because I wasn't versed in the subject matter.

[templar]

I can udnerstand those comments from the left, who used to call the police 'pigs.'

I believe the current 'conservative' term is "Jack Booted Thugs".

[11th Earl of Mar]

Before the Patriot Act, a terrorist driving from LA to NY, could stop everyday and purchase a new cellular phone and number. IIf the person was being watched by police, the feds would have to get a new search warrant for each new phone.

The new law makes it harder for this man to avoid a wire tap. Is it your opinion that the part of the new law should be abolished?

And the new law coordinates information between the FBI [domestic threats] and the CIA [worldwide threats]. Would you abolish this also?

[verity]

You must be a knee-jerk libertarian!

[Zeppo]

Ashcroft himself has at one time defined terrorism as "scaring people with phantoms of lost liberty."

Your statement is clearly false. He made no such definition. Why do you need to lie in order to buttress your arguments?

[IncPen]

Say what you want, but the current war does not threaten out national survival. It is really more like a large police action. Even if Al Queda obliterated New York from the map with some sort of WMD, there would still be a whole lot of Americans left over to reek vengeance. This is nowhere near as much of an existential threat as toe-to-toe thermonuclear war with the Ruskies.

Playing devil's advocate here, suppose a virulent strain of weaponized anthrax or smallpox were released in several places, to large crowds simultaneously.

Much discussion has taken place on this board about the consequences of such an attack, and the general consensus is that the medical facilities would be instantly overwhelmed; most services would cease (think: electricity, water, gas) as people shunned contact and possible contamination.

I think it's rather smug of anyone (ie. you) to believe, in post-911 America, that these people aren't serious, prepared, willing and able to destroy all of us.

[mysterio]

"To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends."

-- John Ashcroft, December 2001

Sounds to me like he said that critics are helping terrorists. And if you're helping terrorists, then you are subject to the provisions of the "patriot" act.

[glorgau]

uppose a virulent strain of weaponized anthrax or smallpox were released in several places, to large crowds simultaneously.

The Ruskies have had (and probably still have) the above for a while. They also have a couple of thousand nuclear warheads easily targetable our way. That is an existential threat. A bunch of camel jockeys hijacking airplanes is not.

The present set of conflicts is a police action comparable to British actions of the 19th century.

[RobertM]

This law will protect Americans from terrorists, if you have nothing to hide do not fear it.

[RobertM]

Thats good that they are monitoring the internet, they can monitor me any time they like, I have nothing to hide.

[Jim Cane]

The Patriot Act is an excercise in pure jackbooted faggotry.

[IncPen]

The Ruskies have had (and probably still have) the above for a while. They also have a couple of thousand nuclear warheads easily targetable our way. That is an existential threat. A bunch of camel jockeys hijacking airplanes is not.

Tell that to the relatives of those killed on 911. Russia is a tangible threat, which is collated and easily held to account for its actions. The jihadis are not.

Russians don't want to die. Jihadis do.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

The present set of conflicts is a police action comparable to British actions of the 19th century.

You have a fatal misunderstanding of world events.

Here's a view of things that might elevate your understanding of what's going on:

A Real War, Fighting the worst fascists since Hitler.

Report back, when you're up to speed.

[Zeppo]

No, that is simply hyperbole on your part (either that, or else you are confused). You'll have to do a lot better than that to support your assertion. For example, why don't you quote the specific wording in the Patriot Act that says that if you use overblown claims about the Patriot Act that makes you a terrorist, and thereby subject to the provisions of the act.

[Badray]

"Everything can be abused or misused.

Glad to hear you say that. One of my biggest criticisms of Ashcroft is his position that 'we have nothing to worry about." For him to believe that, . . . Well, lets just say that I'd have to ask the same question that I asked you.

"As I said, worrying about things that haven't happened yet, and may never happen, is to make the good the enemy of the best, and is the hallmark of paranoia."

I, and a certain James Madison who knows a thing or two about the Constitution, disgree:

"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthen itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle." --James Madison,"A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785: Works 1:163

[glorgau]

Up to speed?

The article referenced basically says that the Jihadists have a different mind set. A suicidal mindset. So did the Germans (if you disagree, look at percentage of German Generals dying compared to all of the other nations in the conflict). And so did the Japanese - they never missed an opportunity to go down with their ship. The circumstances now are that there is no physical nation state where the Jihadists can stand and declare themselves publically. That was roughly tried with Afghanistan. The US beat them down in short order. For example, Pakistan is rife with sympathizers but will not stand openly with the Jihadists. Congress hasn't seen fit to declare war against anyone in particular but just to let the President use force where he deems neccessary.

America in Iraq is roughly equal to what Britain did to the Dervishes in Sudan. The loss ratio was about the same. Then , it re-established the principle that Europeans and especially subjects of the British crown were to be inviolate to the savages. That was one of the British empire's many glorious little wars, ("We've got the Maxim and they have not")

Here, Americans are going to re-establish the principle that our home ground is inviolate to the savages (jihadists).

The actual implementation may have evolved, but the principles are still the same - police action. This is cultural education using a stick more than a knock down drag out fight for our survival. While there may be a temporary emergency, we should not be permantly changing the rules for American citizens. The rules for American citizens must be different than those for non-citizens. Law is what defines us.

That said, I don't believe in sparing the rod. These are some very spoiled children with which we're dealing.