Posted on 12/17/2005 6:40:17 AM PST by Kaslin
Because he is a whimp.
GW No veto ever no matter what Bush.
Now he says he will not even veto McInsanes bill. Breaking his own promise. Guess he really is a Liar now (though he claims he changed his (very weak kneed) mind.
I'm just happy that we're allowing sharp objects back into the passenger compartments of our airliners.
Smart thinking.
Without a sunset clause, I'm glad it was not passed. The Patriot Act needs to be parsed out. The less onerous parts passed on their own merits and made permanent (i.e. removing Gorelicks wall). The more controversial parts made provisional and subject to periodic review and renewal if neccesary.
If that's the case, then Bush should tell the voters all that and then get another vote in the Senate.
Yes.
They will as usual blame President Bush and the administration
And just what freedom did you lose over the last 4 years? I'm sick and tired of people bitching about theoretical lost freedoms, as they clutch their mini version of the US Constitution. If you are not a criminal/terrorist, you haven't lost squat.
Except a little fourth-amendment protection. Your objection, that many people are not directly inconvenienced by these laws, is not valid: it's equally true that the majority of Germans in the 1940s never once faced an interrogation by the Getapo. Only criminals and traitors (and Jews) had to worry about that.
The wimps are in congress. With Republican control of both houses, why should his veto ever be used?
Say what you wish, but taking the fight to the heart of middle east in the face of withering critics like you, the President is showing more courage in the face of the fifth column than any President since Reagan.
Reagan was called a fool even by his friends, but he was right then and it was borne out by history. So it will be for Bush.
What lost freedom? I've not heard of any.
There's this nagging noise about trading freedom for security, but where is the trade? What freedom has been sacrificed?
You still haven't answered my question. Instead of answering my question, you cite the Germans. Nice dodge, you would make a good politician. Its still a theoretical loss of freedom, not an actual one.
That's because roving wiretaps, etc, are being used almost exclusively on muslims. For now. As Homeland Security's scope increases, so will the applications of this act.
Remember, the WoT is young yet. It took years before the WoD reached the level of, for example, asset forfeiture laws. It's only in recent years that your car can be taken away on suspicion of drug trafficking, without due process--and then never given back, even when you turn out to be innocent. Of course, those laws aren't much of a problem either. After all, the majority of people whose assets are forfeit probably are guilty.
Stop using facts! It's all about how we FEEEEEEL!!!
//SARCASM ALERT//
Today, any muslim targetted under the Patriot act who turns out to be innocent was unjustly robbed of his constitutional rights. This means nothing to most of us, because we aren't muslim, and after all, the majority of muslims so targetted probably are guilty. It's only later when the rest of us will start to suffer the same loss--which we will deserve, having turned a blind eye to it when someone else was affected.
Look at the WoD as your model. Specifically, asset forfeiture laws.
I should point out that this statement is invalid on its face, though. Kelo vs. New London is a purely theoretical loss of freedom. Oh, it's real enough for Kelo, of course. But in this country of some 250 millions, a scant handful have actually experienced such takings. For all the rest of us, the loss of private property rights is purely theoretical.
Yep. There is already precedent. It's called the 9-11 commission report. Backed by the anti-america MSM, they covered up Clinton era malfeasance and turned the spotlight on Bush's nine month old administration. Bush played along by covering up Able Danger. WALA! All government failure covered up nicely, citizens completely duped.
We are a nation of laws. Break the law, suffer the consequence. Don't deal drugs, no forfeiture. I don't get your point.
Is that sort of like Geppetto?
Or did you mean Gestapo?
Actually, the fourth amendment was pretty much dead twenty years ago. There ain't much left, regardless of the "Patriot Act".
And by the 1940s, there were a whole lot of laws on the books regarding the jews that they had no freedoms by that time, either.
I agree about the asset forfeiture issues of the WoD. But I don't agree that the WoT is necessarily related in any way by virtue of incrementalism or scope creep.
Quite the opposite. The greater danger I see is the loss of urgency and the slipping of scope as the country gets more distant in history from 9/11.
Roving wiretaps are a good thing, and they are in no way a violation of the fourth amendment. Due process is still required. Warrants are still required. The only difference is that the warrant is to follow a ~person~ instead of a device. This is absolutely sensible given the technology of communications today. In fact, if the direction were reversed... to make a wiretap order follow a device instead of a person... it would rightly be ridiculed as a stupid way to conduct investigations.
Of ~course~ it makes more sense to attach the order to a person.
A CNN report? Huh? What did I miss? I'll bet that person got fired...
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.