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
To: freedomnews; exodus
"...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..."
"...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". They had the right lines bugged, even under the old technology. EXODUS gets the answer right when he says "...I would suggest, MJY1288, that we enforce the laws we have, instead of violating the rights of citizens."
This was a failure of law enforcement, not a lack of tools.
(If we had) this bill in force a year ago, nothing would have been different.
# 300 by SJackson
===============
True, SJackson,
unfortunately most people
can't seem to follow good reasoning anymore.
If this had happened under Clinton,
everyone would be talking about his incompetence,
and the incompetence of his appointees.
Pay attention, people.
Government can't be trusted
just because your man got elected.
The incompetent law enforcement,
and the following violation of our rights,
has taken place while Republicans control the Congress,
and under a Republican President.
To: exodus A "police action"? That's what they called the UN side of the sponsorship of the Korean War. I suppose there are folks who hold to that crappy old term - but they can do better.
All of these things are wars to the participants - and try as you might, you can't take that away from them. War is war is war.
There have been a number of histories posted in FR over the years regarding the question of "declaration of war". One of them cited several hundred specific instances of war where Congress did not issue any sort of declaration, or even enabling legislation. In fact, at lest one early administrative procedure, "The Whiskey Rebellion" actually had George Washington doing his thing as Commander in Chief, not just President.
Somethng to think about there - the President is the Commander in Chief - 24/7. As such he has powers to take actions with or without Congressional approval. We must presume that his actions are, to a degree, Constitutional because, after all, being President, and Commander in Chief, is a Constitutional office.
Presumably the President has the power, independent of any Congressional judgment in the matter, to repel assault against the United States. About the only thing he can't do is call up the militia - that's for Congress to do, and they are not required to first pass a declaration of war - they can just "do it".
Now what do you imagine Congress would do with a militia?
# 319 by muawiyah
===============
Don't hold the militia in contempt, muawiyah.
You are now a member of the Militia. So is Native American Female Vet. So am I, and every other citizen of this country, including hundreds of thousands of ex-policemen and veterans. Don't forget, the militia is what won the un-declared war between the Soviet Union and Afganistan.
Yes, you're right about the term "police action," it was a term used to justify our illegal participation in the un-declared war on Korea. They used that term to give legitimacy to an un-Constitutional act. If our government had tried to tell people that we were going to fight an un-declared war in a conflict that we had no business getting involved in, it wouldn't have been accepted. People would have said, "You can't do that without a Declaration of War!"
So they re-named the rose, and called it a "police action." Now that a President can do! He's the top law enforcement officer in the land, he doesn't have to ask Congress for approval before he performs a "police action." Never mind that Korea wasn't a part of the United States.
But now no one reads the Constitution, they're just TOLD what it says.
And the people believe, because after all, they're our leaders, you see.
You say, "All of these things are wars to the participants..."
That's true, in a limited way. If you're in a gun battle in the middle of the street with gangsters, you're in a war. They even used to call it "gang wars." However, it's still not a war in the national sense. To have a "real" war, the Constitution REQUIRES a Declaration of War from Congress. Declaring war is not a Presidential power. If the President doesn't have the Congressional sanction of an official Declaration of War, his "war" is illegal.
You're right when you say that the President doesn't need a Declaration of War to repell an invasion. Notice, however, that we have not been invaded.
I would add that no one understands the Constitution, even if they do a cursory read, they consider it a "living" document and allow their elected representatives (the gov't was once of the people, by the people and for the people) to trample all over it and its meaning.
Then, if We the People call attention to such abridgment of freedom, we are labeled traitors.
I may not have climbed up that mountain, but I climbed a diffrent one. I have Gulf War Syndrome and a type cancer I should not have till I'm older. I cant get out of bed most of the time. I am in a great deal of pain most of the time. I have been poked, proded and researched. I may not have gone through what some have. I may not have lost a limb, been shot, or looked a German in the eye, but I was wounded in a modern and diffrent way, I lost my health.
BTW I do like knowing you.
Now, about this non-invasion....."
Foreign nationals back-stab us and the first big internal move is to restrict freedoms. How about mass deportations?
Remember - NON-citizens do NOT have all the rights that citizens have.
prambo
Now look at amendment to Article V. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, ,nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Tell me...what would you ask our government to do at this time of public danger with terrorism not only having killed 6000 people but unknown future attacks? Give me solutions. Give me answers. Tell me how much is freedom is you aren't safe and secure? How much freedom do you have if your family, neighbors, or fellow citizens are dead because the government didn't act in a time of public danger. Where will be your voice and life in the solution? Or is it only okay for the government to act if it doesn't effect you whatsoever. Is it only politically correct to gripe at the government when they act and again when they don't act once it touches your doorstep?
Quote by Father Dennis Edward O'Brien Sergeant, USMC "It is the Soldier, not the Reporter who has given us the freedom of press. It is the soldier, not the Poet who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the Soldier, not the Campus Organizer who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the Soldier who salutes the Flag, who serves beneath the Flag, and whose coffin is draped by the Flag, who allows the Protester to burn the Flag." Submitted by Matt Dahlin, USAF
No, I think what he's saying is that he (and I, and millions of other Americans) are unwilling to accede to government measures that are very unlikely to increase our safety and security, and very likely to infringe upon our Constitutional rights.
I can protect myself, thank you very much. I don't need Big Govt to protect me.
Just how many lives of other people would you be willing to sacrifice to terrorists to preserve your own personal comfort anyway?
It's not a straight line. Lincoln faced a crisis of vastly different proportion. It's ironic that Lincoln had to take unpopular extra-constitutional measures to block the southern states secession, which was probably fully within their rights. However Habeus Corpus came back, but I see the similarities in attitude. Government invariably overreaches, tests the bounds of its power.
In my opinion Lincoln made a very BIG mistake that we are all paying for until this day. Of course the Founding Fathers made a BIGGER mistake when they allowed slavery to stand after the Revolution and made the Declaration of Independance a lie for Blacks.
Lincoln-Maybe, but our nation would have been divided. How would the 20th century have played out? The Founding Fathers, the issue of slavery was still 40-50 years away in England. Could they have addressed it? Maybe, but it took a lot of finesse to accomplish what they did. I don't know if they could or what the costs would have been, but you're right, it was the one human rights issue left hanging, still with us today.
I think the single warrant-multiple phone line, E Mail warrant issue is a valid one. Beyond that, I don't see a thing in this bill (which relate to our constitutional freedoms) that we need. And I deplore the concept that those of us who oppose this bill are UN-AMERICAN. That is not an American value. Criticism of our government is at the core of our nation.
In my post 300 I briefly stated my opinion that this was a failure of government in it's law enforcement/defence role, but not a failure caused by lack of tools.
I understand the benefit of this bill to congress, it shows us they are doing something.
In 338 posts, very few have adressed the specific features of this bill (those portions restricting our rights). I'm OK with the phone tap/warrant issue as a technical one. I'd love to hear some other examples that would have made any significant difference in averting 9/11. Could any of you point some out some ot them out to me? If not, what are we considering it for?
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.