H.R.3162 PATRIOT ACT{ YOUR NEW- POLICESTATE- LOOK FOR YOUR SELF}

thomas ^ | GOVERNMENT

[freedomnews]

H.R.3162

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001

[exodus]

===============

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.

[kempo]

yea, I know wht you mean, lets just do nothing.

[kempo]

KDD. thats a very good answer and as for as The PC goes, thats water under the bridge since 9-11 as far as I'm concerned.

[exodus]

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.
# 299 by exodus
===============

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.

[LiberteeBell]

But now no one reads the Constitution, they're just TOLD what it says.

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.

[Native American Female Vet]

No sarcasm was intended in that reply. Really. It has been bugging me that I did not expand. So I will now, but I always hesitate writing what Im about to, because I dont like it when people say Im trying to use sympathy to make my point or some such nonsense as I have gotten here on FR.

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.

[muawiyah]

Coulda' fooled me. Almost got hit by the plane coming into the Pentagon, and definitely it's been a very narrow miss with the anthrax - but we find that out tomorrow morning.

Now, about this non-invasion....."

[prambo]

You and your pal are PATHETIC. You should read a little history - like the use of Weimar Republic laws by Hitler. Add Hillary to this law and we will have the Fourth Reich.

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

[nancetc]

Section. 4. Article. IV: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened)against domestic Violence.

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?

[nancetc]

And to all who keep referring to Ben Franklin and essential liberty...here is essential liberty all rolled into one....

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

[Henrietta]

In other words you would do little or nothing while thousands more die. You are truely a pea brain.

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.

[MHGinTN]

I can protect myself, thank you very much. I don't need Big Govt to protect me. 334 posted by Henrietta Yeah, right! I wonder how many in the WTC though that too? You are just very fortunate that there are people in this nation that ignore your stupidity and protect you anyway!

[Kevin Curry]

No. What you are saying is, "Let a million die just as long as I don't suffer even the possibility of personal inconvenience at the hands of the government."

Just how many lives of other people would you be willing to sacrifice to terrorists to preserve your own personal comfort anyway?

[kempo]

Henrietta, little buddy, I'm 6'4" and 250lb. I shoot expert with a Glock 22C 4 times a year. I'm a firearms instructor. I've never been on the loosing end of a fight and I've had to defend myself more times than I can remember. So I can take care of myself too.

[handk]

	"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chain be set lightly upon you and may posterity forget ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams - American Patriot
Samuel Adams Quote	"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men"
Samuel Adams Quote	"Mankind are governed more by their feelings than by reason."
"Doc" Tavish Quote	"I am tired of seeing people get attacked for speaking the truth and the hecklers not being able to prove their point other than through scorn or ridicule. Liberals can't refute the truth so all liberals instead attempt to make the truth bearer into a buffoon hoping to draw the public's attention away from the message! I will tell you a secret and I hope that you learn from it! If I hear something being debated pertaining to a subject that I am not cognizant of, therefore impartial, I examine the manner of the debate and conduct. I know who is telling the truth and who is lying by the tactics employed - the liar always attacks the opposing person and the truth teller always attacks the opposing premise! What great person or debater has ever proven their point by ridiculing people? Did Jesus use this method? Who has ever used ridicule other than those who can't refute the truth, such as what the Pharisees did to Jesus? Truth is never defended with ridicule. Facts speak for themselves."
Somerset Maugham Quote	"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom, and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that, too."
Patrick Henry Quote	"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Benjamin Franklin	"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Judge Learned Hand (1872-1961)	"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women. When it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it."
Thomas Jefferson Quote	"Unlearned views... are, perhaps, the more confident in proportion as they are less enlightened."
William Pit Quote	"Necessity is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves."
Dresden James Quote	"The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves."
Thomas Jefferson Quote	"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

[SJackson]

Believe it or not, this all started with Lincoln when he suspended Habeus Corpus and declared War on the South. Just like the Democraps and the Republicrats today, the North and the South drew a line in the sand and threw out the Constitution to achieve their political ends.

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?

[Native American Female Vet]

That is a wonderful reply. Thank you! I am going to print that.