Posted on 06/14/2005 12:14:50 PM PDT by neverdem
|
|
Conservatives, liberals align against Patriot ActBy James G. LakelyTHE WASHINGTON TIMES Published June 14, 2005 Conservative groups have found common ground with the liberal American Civil Liberties Union in their opposition to the USA Patriot Act and pledge to wage a high-profile fight against it, claiming even its renewal is shrouded in secrecy.
|
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Yes, I've read it.
That is one valid argument against the PA. Another argument is that we are not at war.
We are fighting nations which support transnational terrorists. So far, Afghanistan and Iraq have been successfully won. That would leave at least Iran, Syria and NK. I would hardly define that as a war against concepts.
This and his aclu board membership is why bob barr COULDN'T run for senate. He NEVER would have won a pubbie primary in Georgia.
Anyone interested in defending the country? Hello? As the World War II expression had it, "Haven't you heard, there's a war on." These concerns about the Patriot Act will last until the next terrorist attack, when everyone will be hollering, "Why didn't we do something?"
No. But I can see where a terrorist, a drug dealer, or a child molester might have a problem with it. Besides, they have much more important and interesting things to do with their time. And in any event, I certainly don't know that they can do it "without cause."
So we cannot defend the country and keep the Bill of Rights intact? Or are you arguing that the "patriot" act does not undercut the Bill of Rights? If you are arguing that, then I suggest you read it carefully. And to help you, pretend that Janet Reno wrote it. Read it like you don't trust the author.
" Perhaps he was too busy pushing his law (HR 1528) that would make it a felony not to be a drug snitch."
He just drafted H. J. Res. 24. I found it over on http://thomas.loc.gov/. It gets rid of the 22nd amendment.
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution. (Introduced in House)
HJ 24 IH
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. J. RES. 24
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 17, 2005
Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. SENSENBRENNER , Mr. SABO, and Mr. PALLONE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
`Article --
`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.'.
Not fair, Laz. Heck, this thing might be wrapped up inside of 300 years.
Then, you can have all your rights back.
In other words, let's don't have more effective intelligence, counterterrorism, and law enforcement because they can potentially abuse their powers. For me, this is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I would rather keep the baby and deal with any bathwater separately.
That's actually the exact rationale behind the Bill of Rights.
"If Hillary were President, would you want her to have these powers?"
I remind you, we have a war to win or do you think it is such a sure thing that we'll win that we can start worrying about who will cater the celebration on V-T day.
All we can do right now is do EVERYTHING possible to win, then worry about who gets the power next.
N.B. the beast doesn't have a chance to win.
Exactly. Terrorists may take my life, but only the government can take my freedom. If I let it.
Only if you think that the Patriot Act is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. I don't, and neither do most courts who have considered Constitutional challenges to the Act.
Don't forget those evil Rubik's cube knock-off sellers....they are the really terrorists in disguise
Homeland Security Agents Visit Small Toy Store in Oregon About Magic Cube
ST. HELENS, Ore. Oct 28, 2004 So far as she knows, Pufferbelly Toys owner Stephanie Cox hasn't been passing any state secrets to sinister foreign governments, or violating obscure clauses in the Patriot Act.
So she was taken aback by a mysterious phone call from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to her small store in this quiet Columbia River town just north of Portland.
"I was shaking in my shoes," Cox said of the September phone call. "My first thought was the government can shut your business down on a whim, in my opinion. If I'm closed even for a day that would cause undue stress."
When the two agents arrived at the store, the lead agent asked Cox whether she carried a toy called the Magic Cube, which he said was an illegal copy of the Rubik's Cube, one of the most popular toys of all time.
He told her to remove the Magic Cube from her shelves, and he watched to make sure she complied.
After the agents left, Cox called the manufacturer of the Magic Cube, the Toysmith Group, which is based in Auburn, Wash. A representative told her that Rubik's Cube patent had expired, and the Magic Cube did not infringe on the rival toy's trademark.
The fact is the Bill of Rights does exactly what you were talking about; it insists upon "less effective" law enforcement capabilities, precisely to limit the abuse of same.
B4 this Act it was illegal for the CIA to work with the FBI on terrorism. Do you not remember the WALL created between them???? Remember all the unconnected dots?
B4 this act a cell phone couldn't be tapped without the specific phone number. Disposable cellphones rendered law enforcement helpless without those roving wiretaps.
What rights have you lost?
Trouble is BoR IV thu VI details procedures that must be followed against those scumbags.
Let the State decide that Patriot Act supercedes the Bill of Rights anytime the State feels like it, who really won the Cold War anyway?
Outrageous. But not terribly surprising.
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.