Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Patriot Act II: Pro-safety, or anti-freedom?
WorldNetDaily ^ | December 5, 2004 | Ron Strom

Posted on 12/05/2004 10:36:49 AM PST by TERMINATTOR

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-54 next last
"Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security." Benjamin Franklin
1 posted on 12/05/2004 10:36:50 AM PST by TERMINATTOR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
they see as potential Nazi-like developments


Anyone who says this clearly is completely ignorant of both the History of the Nazi regime and the realities of the Partiot Act 2. It is really funny how those who scream loudest in American politics repeatedly demonstrate both their complete ignorance and their hyper partisan political bigotry.
2 posted on 12/05/2004 10:40:41 AM PST by MNJohnnie (Next up, US Senate. 60 in 06!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR

It is amazing that the Surpreme court lets any of this stand. Our justices need to study the Constitution more carefully.


3 posted on 12/05/2004 10:45:24 AM PST by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
The removal of the requirement to disclose the identity of anyone who is charged in a terror-related investigation until that person is charged, regardless of how long it may take;

I thought they only "disappeared" people in dictatorships and communist countries.

Creating a new category of "domestic security surveillance" that permits electronic eavesdropping of entirely domestic activity under looser standards than are provided for ordinary criminal surveillance;

Big Brother's watching you...

Repealing the current court limits on local police spying on religious and political activity;

And I'm sure they'll only spy on mosques, right?

The ability to obtain credit records and library records without a warrant;

Now where did I put that 4th Amendment?

Expansion of the definition of terrorism whereby individuals engaged in civil disobedience could risk losing their citizenship, and their organization could be subject to wiretapping and asset seizure;

Dissent is not allowed.

Sheltering federal agents engaged in illegal surveillance without a court order from criminal prosecution if they are following orders of high Executive Branch officials;

"I was only following orders" didn't work in Nuremberg, but apparently it'll work here.

Americans could be extradited, searched and wiretapped at the behest of foreign nations, whether or not treaties allow it; and

Don't do anything that's illegal in other countries. That Nazi paraphernalia could have the Germans or the French after you, with our government's help.

Lawful immigrants would be stripped of the right to a fair deportation hearing and federal courts would not be allowed to review immigration rulings.

Immigrants have no rights. Kicking out lawful immigrants was one of Hitler's first steps.

4 posted on 12/05/2004 10:52:32 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

'Expansion of the definition of terrorism whereby individuals engaged in civil disobedience could risk losing their citizenship, and their organization could be subject to wiretapping and asset seizure;'

*What exactly does that mean? What kind of disobedience would kick one out of the country?


5 posted on 12/05/2004 10:57:58 AM PST by Rick_Michael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
When ever I see a complaint about the Patriot Act, or “blaming” John Ashcroft for it, or whatever else the non-thinking party spews forth, I think it is worthwhile to recall which Democrats and other liberals voted YEA for the Act in 2001:

Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Breaux (D-LA) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Carnahan (D-MO) Carper (D-DE) Chafee (R-RI) Cleland (D-GA) Clinton (D-NY) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Daschle (D-SD) Dayton (D-MN) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Edwards (D-NC) Feinstein (D-CA) Graham (D-FL) Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Johnson (D-SD) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Mikulski (D-MD) Miller (D-GA) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Snowe (R-ME) Stabenow (D-MI) Torricelli (D-NJ) Wellstone (D-MN) Wyden (D-OR)

6 posted on 12/05/2004 10:58:53 AM PST by bushisdamanin04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR

bump to find later.


7 posted on 12/05/2004 11:03:16 AM PST by muggs (Political Correctness and Pandering For Votes Is Going to Get Americans Killed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bushisdamanin04

OK, hang them too. After a speedy trial, of course.


8 posted on 12/05/2004 11:03:32 AM PST by TERMINATTOR ("I believe in background checks at gun shows or anywhere" - GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

The courts need to gut this thing if it comes to pass. Laws like this is why we need courts, AND real conservatives who will look out for our liberty against an over reaching government.


9 posted on 12/05/2004 11:04:55 AM PST by KoRn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

bump (for later)


10 posted on 12/05/2004 11:10:23 AM PST by infidel29 (America is GREAT because she is GOOD, the moment she ceases to be GOOD, she ceases to be GREAT - B.F)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: TERMINATTOR

Are the borders closed or are they open?...are OTM getting in or not?
Has the border patrol been hindered or helped by HS
Are our commercial and cargo pilots armed or is Minetta still obstructing?
Are Middle Eastern males between the ages of 18-45 being correctly profiled or blue haired Florida grannies?


12 posted on 12/05/2004 11:29:49 AM PST by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR

I agree with Dennis Miller on this stuff. I believe I have a fundamental human right to stay connected to my butt.


13 posted on 12/05/2004 11:33:40 AM PST by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
"Anyone who says this clearly is completely ignorant of both the History of the Nazi regime and the realities of the Partiot Act 2."

Uh, the Nazi regime was built "one step at a time" from what was originally a pretty liberal democracy. BOTH Patriot acts are incredibly dangerous, in that there is no time limit on these expansions of power. Put a five-year sunset clause on ALL of these "additions" to our jurisprudence and I would feel a LOT better about them.

14 posted on 12/05/2004 11:44:58 AM PST by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR

Benjamin Franklin never experienced muslim terrorism up close and personal.


15 posted on 12/05/2004 11:46:31 AM PST by Publius6961 (The most abundant things in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
"The American Civil Liberties Union has analyzed the draft of the bill"

I have a hard time believing anything these clowns say.

As for spying on mosques or commies, quite frankly, that's the two spots I'd want them to stick their noses in.

However, Franklin's admonition rings as true today as when he said it. I'm a little nervous about another expansion of government power (I'd rather do it only when necessary, and admittedly, stopping some religious fanatic from blowing up my fellow Americans is 100% NECESSARY.). Maybe if they went ahead and read the bill before passing it this time...

16 posted on 12/05/2004 11:47:26 AM PST by mbennett203 (To re-elect Bush, dominate congress and to hear the lamentations of the Democrats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mysterio; Terminator; Joe Brower; Carry_Okie; clee1; farmfriend; Blood of Tyrants; B4Ranch; ...
It is amazing that the Surpreme court lets any of this stand. Our justices need to study the Constitution more carefully.

Because we've appointed four generations (or more) of elitist liberals to our courts, there are many who want to rein in their power. Instead we need to appoint better judges. So where are the statesmen among our recent appointees? That's a different question, but we continue to fall short of the standards our founding fathers set, including the list of people so-called conservatives have appointed.

The problem I have with the Patriot Act II is that it makes permanent what PA1 required at a time of war. Compounded with the fact that our leaders are unwilling to conduct the war at a pace anything like WWII, it could indeed last for generations. What would the founding fathers say? Imagine Thomas Jefferson's reaction to the PA2 raft?

And there are even darker worries. How would a Hillary Clinton or a John Kerry be prevented from misusing a Patriot Act? Will those of us with vocal opposition to legislation we find unconstitutional, such as gun control, come under scrutiny when the political pendulum swings back to the left?

We should do what we can within and in obedience to the constitution first in order to defend ourselves. That would include protecting our borders and dealing with illegal immigration. That would include getting serious about finishing the war instead of letting it crawl on indefinitely. That would include defending our defense technology from states like China. That would include dismantling terrorist groups in America, and those that sympathize with them like CAIR, AIM, and ELF. That would include deporting admitted enemies of our constitution.

17 posted on 12/05/2004 11:51:01 AM PST by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR; ninenot; sittnick; steve50; Hegemony Cricket; Willie Green; Wolfie; ex-snook; FITZ; ...
To put this question in perspective - every year several hundred thousands of people in USA die from cancer. Many of them die painful, slow death (with the restricted access to the painkillers because of war on drugs).

I think it is better to die in a terrorist attack than from cancer. And the chance for the second is uncomparably greater. I would rather spend money on medical research than on restricting freedoms in the name of "security".

18 posted on 12/05/2004 12:01:51 PM PST by A. Pole ("For the love of money is the root of all evil" -- II Timothy 6:10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

I don't trust any security law named the "Patriot Act". Who named this act thusly anyway? What was the reason? Usually I know who authors of laws are - who authored this one?


19 posted on 12/05/2004 12:04:35 PM PST by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting johnathangaltfilms.com and jihadwatch.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR; USF; Happy2BMe; weenie; ApesForEvolution

Ping


20 posted on 12/05/2004 12:10:54 PM PST by jan in Colorado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson