Posted on 10/27/2001 9:33:56 AM PDT by freedomnews
H.R.3162
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001
Being they are not US citizens, they are not afforded the same protections that are guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
As a US Marshal friend of mine said on Friday, "If the US Government had just enforced the laws in existance, we would have no terrorist threat today!"
Here are my papers Kapitan. Oh yes, I will strip down right here and show you I have no veapons </sarcasm off>
To: exodus
I would think that this Bill is a defacto declaration of war.
Congress does not have to pass a formal declaration of war to "declare" war.
The manner in which Congress declares War is not set forth in the constitution.
They can declare War by simply by supporting the military action of the Commander in Chief.
How's the view from under the sand?
# 231 by P-Marlowe
===============
Actually, a Declaration of War must be formally made,
otherwise, there is no Declaration of War.
The very definition of "declare" is "to make known formally."
The procedure for declaring war may not be spelled out in the Constitution,
but Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11, together with the 10th Amendment,
says that only Congress is allowed to declare war.
It is not a Presidential power.
"I would think that this Bill is a defacto declaration of war."
"This Bill," P-Marlowe?
Do you mean to say that until this Bill passed, we were NOT at war?
I remember media types, and President types, and Congress types,
all saying "We are at war with terrorists!"
from the day of the bombing.
If they are to be believed,
Congress doesn't have to formally declare war.
They also didn't have to formally declare war
on crime, or on drugs, or on Vietman, or on any Balkan state.
Amazing, isn't it?
You don't have to formally do anything
to violate the Constitution.
I swore the oath back when it meant something - when most of the people living in this country hated soldiers - hated men doing their patriotic duty. You swore it when it was easy; when most people fully supported the war.
So don't toss any drek my way regarding that oath.
That's for two reasons - one has to do with who gets to pay insurance claims which arise out of acts of war; - one has to do with the identity of the enemy which seems to be rich people from/in Saudi Arabia.
Still, I've been "shot at" - twice now! It's a war. You guys want to quibble around the edges, go ahead. It's still a war no matter what you or Congress say.
You are the one that betrayed the trust.
I have said it before and it bears repeating
It scares me so many are willing to put the burden of proof on themselves, rather than the government. It is the antithesis of freedom.
If you have the time.
To: Native American Female Vet
To: exodus "When the enemy is trying to kill you - that's a war even if Congress is of a contrary opinion. Actually, the enemy may be trying to kill Congress - still, you will notice, they are afraid of going through the formality of declaring war..."
"...Still, I've been "shot at" - twice now!"
It's a war.
You guys want to quibble around the edges, go ahead.
It's still a war no matter what you or Congress say."
# 291 by muawiyah
===============
You're being emotional, muawiyah.
By that kind of reasoning, a group of "kids" shooting at your house would plunge our nation into war. Never mind that there isn't an enemy nation to point at, they shot at me, so we're at war.
Normal police procedure can be used to fight terrorism, muawiyah.
Remember all the aircraft hijacking 30 years ago? The government didn't violate any rights, but they managed to stop the highjackings anyway.
We are under no danger of losing our nation, or our way of life, because of terrorists. Terrorists can't restrict our rights. That danger comes from our government, and it's un-Constitutional, un-official "war."
On the other hand, saying there is no war when there is, in fact, war, is stupid. It's also highly offensive to those who are under attack.
To: Native American Female Vet
Hey, look, I was standing down Russian tanks no more than 50 yards away with a broken machinegun when you were still getting your diapers changed.
I swore the oath back when it meant something - when most of the people living in this country hated soldiers - hated men doing their patriotic duty. You swore it when it was easy; when most people fully supported the war.
So don't toss any drek my way regarding that oath.
# 290 by muawiyah
===============
It was easy for her, muawiyah.
She's young,
she never had to walk uphill down the mountain
in the freezing snow on a blistering hot summer day
to volunteer to die for her country.
Forgive the whipper-snapper.
I know you're a better, more patriotic soldier than her.
To: exodus
Frankly, I am as disappointed as you are that our Reps don't give a big rat's a*s about our troops enough to respect them with a declaration fo war. That's because there are too many PC Democrats in there - if I had my way, they'd all be chucked into a prison until the ending of hostilities.
On the other hand, saying there is no war when there is, in fact, war, is stupid. It's also highly offensive to those who are under attack.
# 297 by muawiyah
===============
It has nothing to do with "respecting the troops," muawiyah.
Sending troops into a foreign nation,
without a Declaration of War,
is a so-called "police action."
It is not a war.
Also, sending troops into a foreign nation is itself an "Act of War."
An Act of War without Congressional sanction is illegal.
First, however, I think we need to appreciate our founding fathers warning that power, particularly when concentrated in government, corrupts. Many posts on this thread seem to accuse those opposed to granting greater power to the government is un-American. Frankly, I think the opposite would be closer to the truth.
This war started, in my opinion, with the attack in Beirut. It has intensified over the last 7 years with an attack on the WTC, two embassies in Africa, Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, and finally the 9/11 attack on the WTC. I don't think terrorism was on the govermnents radar screen in any serious way prior to 9/11. Their failure to combat terrorism wasn't due to a lack of law enforcement "tools", it was due to a lack of will. I was amazed, immediately after 9/11 how quickly arrests were made. The New York Times ran an article today, "Jubilant Calls on Sept. 11 Led to F.B.I. Arrests". The had the right lines bugged, even under the old technology. EXODUS gets the answer right when he says "...I would suggest, MJY1288, that we inforce the laws we have, instead of violating the rights of citizens." This was a failure of law enforcement, not a lack of tools. We this bill in force a year ago, nothing would have been different.
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.