Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Libertarian Party: Bush's Patriot Act II is Every Tyrant's Dream
Libertarian Party press release ^ | March 6, 2003 | George Getz

Posted on 03/07/2003 10:14:33 PM PST by Commie Basher

===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: March 6, 2003
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone 202) 333-0008
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
===============================

Sequel to USA Patriot Act is every tyrant's dream, Libertarians say.

WASHINGTON, DC -- Here's great news for everyone who supported the USA Patriot Act, Libertarians say: The Justice Department has secretly drafted follow-up legislation that would allow the government to make secret arrests, create a vast new DNA database of "suspected terrorists" and even strip Americans of their citizenship and deport them.

"If you liked the Patriot Act, you're going to love the sequel," said George Getz, Libertarian Party communications director. "Patriot II offers awesome government power, rapidly disappearing freedom, and an action-packed war on the Constitution. You'll be sitting on the edge of your seat as your liberties are stripped away."

The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 (DSEA) – dubbed "Patriot II" because of its similarities to the USA Patriot Act – was secretly written by the Justice Department in January and has not yet been introduced in Congress. A draft of the legislation was leaked recently to the Center for Public Integrity and posted on its website.

"The original Patriot Act got rave reviews from authoritarians everywhere," Getz noted. "Rogue FBI agents conducting 'sneak-and-peak searches,' an e-mail spy scheme named Carnivore, secret deportations – this legislation was every petty tyrant's dream.

"It opened to a packed House – and Senate – in October 2001 and got a nearly unanimous 'thumbs up.' Clearly there's a market out there for less freedom, and Washington is rushing to cash in with a sequel."

The plot for Patriot II: A group of unscrupulous politicians in a large, Western democracy capitalize on a terrorist attack in order to vastly expand their powers. They embark on an effort to convince their subjects that by surrendering their freedom they will be protected from terrorists and other criminals.

Working along with a "Department of Justice," they subvert the Constitution by secretly crafting legislation that allows the government to:

* Make secret arrests, overturning a federal court decision requiring the government to identify persons detained in the 9/11 investigation.

* Issue secret subpoenas, and jail people who reveal to anyone except their attorney that they are the subject of a secret investigation.

* Strip citizens of their citizenship for associating with a group designated by the attorney general as a "terrorist organization," even if the individual's conduct is legal.

* Allow the attorney general to deport any foreigner, even a permanent legal resident, whose presence he deems "inconsistent with national security."

* Create a database of DNA collected from "suspected terrorists" and from non-citizens suspected of ordinary crimes.

* Conduct a wiretap for 15 days without a judge's approval, and monitor an individual's Internet and chat room visits for 48 hours without a court order.

* Overturn local court decrees that restrict police from illegal spying.

* Weaken the Freedom of Information Act to prevent journalists from learning who is being held in police custody.

Though Patriot II is expected to be a hit with politicians and much of the public, not everyone will be buying a ticket, Getz predicted.

"Libertarians and other freedom-loving Americans have panned Patriot II for obvious reasons," he said. "It's burdened by the same clichéd cast of characters as the original – a devious attorney general, an opportunistic president, and pandering politicians who hoodwink people into surrendering their freedom.

"Will anyone fall for this story line a second time?"


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: ashcroft; bush; civilliberties; libertarianparty; libertarians; patriotact; pitchforktorchtime; tia; totalinformation; waronterror
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 281-295 next last
To: tpaine
States are empowered to administer criminal law by the Tenth. -- Thus, -- it "demands" that the states treat killings of unborn babies as "murder".

State laws prohibit murder, so by that "reasoning" states must prohibit abortion.

Your position just self-destructed.

141 posted on 03/09/2003 1:52:53 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

Everytime I read a thread where Republicans and Democrats debate a subject, the Republicans usually use very logical arguments and the Democrats just attack the Republicans. If a few Libertarians show up on the thread they also are usually logical and most of the time seem to back the Republican argument over the Democratic argument.

Everytime I read a thread where Libetarians and Democrats are debating an issue (I have seen it happen), the same thing occurs. Just read the above paragraph and swap Republican and Libetarian.

But what bugs me about the Republican party (I am a member) is that everytime I read a thread - where Republicans and Libertarians debate an issue - the percentage of logical arguments by Republicans decrease and the percentage of mud slinging increases as opposed to when Republicans debate a Democrat.

I do not mean to imply that Libertarians don't sling mud. However, Libertarians mud-slinging versus logical arguments do seem to be consistant whether they debate a Democrat or a Republican, unlike Republicans.

Just my observation.
142 posted on 03/09/2003 1:58:04 PM PST by keyd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
1.1 The power of the federal government should be limited, as per the tenth amendment to the U. S. Constitution.

"So federal courts shouldn't be able to interfere with state laws prohibiting abortion? Why the sudden change of heart?"
-roscoe- confused again

State laws must conform to constitutional individual liberties. -- See 'supremacy' in Art VI and the Preamble to the BOR's.
124 by tpaine



The usual self-contradiction.
BTW, where does Constitution state that the killings of the unborn are "individual liberties"?
125 -roscoe- confused again


The constitution demands that both fed & state law 'conform'. -- Thus, no contradiction.

Killings of the 'unborn' are murder, and always have been. They must be proven before judge & jury, with due process.
-- Decrees prohibiting 'abortion' are not due process, they are attempts to control the life & liberty of the women and men involved. - Prohibitional zealotry apparently knows no bounds.
127 tpaine


Where does it "demand" that the states treat the killings of unborn babies as "individual liberties"?
-Roscoe- playing 'straw man'


States are empowered to administer criminal law by the Tenth. -- Thus, -- it "demands" that the states treat killings of unborn babies as "murder".
138 tpaine

State laws prohibit murder, so by that "reasoning" states must prohibit abortion.
-roscoe- confused again


As above:
"Killings of the 'unborn' are murder, and always have been. They must be proven before judge & jury, with due process."
-- "Decrees prohibiting 'abortion' are not due process, they are attempts to control the life & liberty of the women and men involved."




143 posted on 03/09/2003 2:06:10 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: keyd; Roscoe
Tell it to poor roscoe.

The more logical the argument presented against his position, --- the more he plays all the old illogical 'debating' games.

Apparently, he cannot understand that everyone can see through this pathetic ploy. - It's sad.
144 posted on 03/09/2003 2:15:15 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: keyd
The reason Republicans loose their logic and start slinging mud when debating Libertarians, is mostly due to the Libertarian party costing the Republican Party control of the U.S. Senate. If I were a republican I'd be pretty angry about that also. Lets face it, the Libertarian Party is the single biggest threat to the Republican Party.

Additionally, many of the more radical libertarians (myself included), are not actually conservatives (by dictionary definition). Actually most conservatives aren't either. The true conservatives are Republican moderates, who seek to strengthen the institutions of the State in an orderly manner, against the onslaught of Democrats, who want to use it for their manipulative, corrupt and chaotic ideological social experiments. To this end, we libertarians and conservatives, confuse the divide between left and right, by our calling for a weakened government.

Moderate Republicans (true conservatives), correctly understand that united we can defeat the Democrats. Divided, we both loose. Thus to them, the more immediate threat are the libertarians who threaten that unity.

To this end, I denounce the Libertarian Party for the fantasy view that presents itself on the political stage as a "real party." It should remain outside the political arena, reserving its outreach activities to that educating people about its philosophy and further development of the presentation of that philosophy. L.P. candidates should be seeking to inform those who can understand, and not seeking votes from those who do not understand. If we are right in our philosophical outlook, then we will win the people necessary to become a real party in the future, without destroying the nation in the process.

145 posted on 03/09/2003 2:46:03 PM PST by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: ActionNewsBill
Being a Republican or not has nothing to do with knowing how legislation is passed in this country.
146 posted on 03/09/2003 2:47:52 PM PST by Dolphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: xrp
Gotta bump that . Some of these folks seem to think that anything the FedGov institutes is temporary but cannot name 1 damn thing that has ever been temporary . I love threads such as this . It saves me a great deal of time in choosing my associations .

Good post .

147 posted on 03/09/2003 2:49:14 PM PST by Ben Bolt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Rightminded
Rush lost me when he said 2 years ago on his show that no American has a right to own an ak-47 . That comment alone was enough for me to get his big picture .
148 posted on 03/09/2003 2:52:48 PM PST by Ben Bolt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: jackbob
Excellent post, jackbob, but I'd like to nitpick your spelling.

I think you meant "lose" instead of "loose", a common error here at FR.

149 posted on 03/09/2003 3:20:04 PM PST by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: agitator
This is nothing more than a classic example of requiring X numbers of deaths before somebody decides to redirect funds from the mayor's idiot brother-in-law's salary to putting up a traffic light at a dangerous intersection.

Then you indict Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mercedes-Benz, Daimler-Chrysler, and every other automobile company on the planet for doing precisely the same thing, as well as every other business who produces a product that people use every day. There is no such thing as a completely safe product, and no amount of engineering or 20-20 hindsight can make any complex product completely, utterly safe in every scenario.

Any consumer item, whether it is an automobile, toaster, or jet plane, is a compromise between absolute safety (the ideal) and lowest possible operating cost. Car manufacturers know this very well and often knowingly withhold features ("technology x") that would make their vehicles safer from their designs for the simple, inescapable reason that they would cost too much. And yes, car manufacturers know very well that some jury somewhere is probably going to find them at fault for not incorporating this technology X into their designs - they consider it a cost of doing business.

If the federal government is to be held responsible for not mandating armored cockpit doors since the first hijacking of a civilian passenger airliner (in the 60s, if memory serves), then we should immediately file massive product-liability lawsuits against every automobile manufacturer for not developing pure titanium frames and body panels, puncture-proof fuel tanks and tires, glass that breaks and allows missiles inside the passenger compartment, speed governors that prevent motor vehicles from going faster than 5 MPH, and a fuel source other than dangerous, explosive gasoline.

Armored cockpit doors weigh more than the standard model. Every "improvement" made to an airframe adds weight and costs money to implement; money that you and I pay out in higher airfares. While I do not object in principle to increased safety in the air, there comes a point at which these "clarion calls" for continual, unfunded mandates become unreasonable and downright silly. I for one don't want to have to pay $10,000 to fly to Podunk to see my aunt because the flight I have to take has every safety measure known to man, as mandated by greedy lawyers, continuous lawsuits, and Quixotic politicians.

150 posted on 03/09/2003 3:24:53 PM PST by strela ("Stop singing and finish your homework!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"Killings of the 'unborn' are murder, and always have been. They must be proven before judge & jury, with due process."

It has to be prohibited by law before it can go to a jury. Your argument self-destructed again.

151 posted on 03/09/2003 4:38:23 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
1.1 The power of the federal government should be limited, as per the tenth amendment to the U. S. Constitution.

"So federal courts shouldn't be able to interfere with state laws prohibiting abortion? Why the sudden change of heart?"
-roscoe- confused again

State laws must conform to constitutional individual liberties. -- See 'supremacy' in Art VI and the Preamble to the BOR's.
124 by tpaine



The usual self-contradiction.
BTW, where does Constitution state that the killings of the unborn are "individual liberties"?
125 -roscoe- confused again


The constitution demands that both fed & state law 'conform'. -- Thus, no contradiction.

Killings of the 'unborn' are murder, and always have been. They must be proven before judge & jury, with due process.
-- Decrees prohibiting 'abortion' are not due process, they are attempts to control the life & liberty of the women and men involved. - Prohibitional zealotry apparently knows no bounds.
127 tpaine


Where does it "demand" that the states treat the killings of unborn babies as "individual liberties"?
-Roscoe- playing 'straw man'


States are empowered to administer criminal law by the Tenth. -- Thus, -- it "demands" that the states treat killings of unborn babies as "murder".
138 tpaine

State laws prohibit murder, so by that "reasoning" states must prohibit abortion.
-roscoe- confused again


As above:
"Killings of the 'unborn' are murder, and always have been. They must be proven before judge & jury, with due process."
-- "Decrees prohibiting 'abortion' are not due process, they are attempts to control the life & liberty of the women and men involved."
-tpaine-


It has to be prohibited by law before it can go to a jury.
-roscoe- pitifully begs


Yes, of course roscoe. Play word games with 'prohibit' if it makes you feel better.
Now, -- get some rest. Your delusions of 'winning' arguments are getting worse.
152 posted on 03/09/2003 4:54:05 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Fascinating example of doublethink.
153 posted on 03/09/2003 4:57:27 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
"Fascinating example of doublethink."
-roscoe-
[reduced to playing 'neener-neener']
154 posted on 03/09/2003 5:03:06 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Main Entry: dou·ble·think
Pronunciation: 'd&-b&l-"thi[ng]k
Function: noun
Date: 1949
: a simultaneous belief in two contradictory ideas
155 posted on 03/09/2003 5:09:17 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
"Those who give up Liberty for Security deserve neither."

Do you know who said that?

It still is true.

If they wanted to do something right, they would adopt and Israeli-style approach to firearms...meaning follow the Second Amendment and allow all us law-abiding firearms owners to carry them at all times.

But that would empower us serfs too much...

156 posted on 03/09/2003 5:22:43 PM PST by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
You can't name, or demonstrate, these two contraditory 'ideas' you erroniously believe I have.
-- You only have your own delusions.
157 posted on 03/09/2003 5:34:22 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: strela
Even Superman wouldn't have been able to foresee and prevent at least four separate hijackings, all on the same day, all unexpectedly, all employing a devastating new type of attack on American property and people.

That is not true:

1. In 1995, the federal authorities were given the computer hard drive of terrorist Ramzi Yousef by the Filipino government. It contained the workings of just such a plot, to hijack airliners and fly them into buildings. Lately, this information, long ignored, has been partially mentioned in news reports as "The Manila Plot," but that was only the plot to blow up multiple US airliners at one time. The part about flying planes into buildings is NEVER mentioned.

2. In JULY 2001, the Genoa Economic Conference was threatened by Al Qaeda. They were going to hijack a plane and fly it into the building where the world leaders were gathering. The Italian government deployed surface to air missiles in response.

3. The chief of Pakistani intelligence visited Washington during the week prior to 9/11. He remained for a few days after 9/11. In the first few days, he met privately with George Tenet of CIA. About a week later, on 9/11, the CIA used the NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE to run a computer simulation of jumbo jets being flown into buildings. The simulation was underway when the first airliner hit the WTC. The Chief of Pakistani Intelligence was later fired for wire transferring $100,000 to 9/11 hijacker MOHAMMED ATTA. Let's see: One week, Paki intel chief talks to Tenet. One week later, CIA is simulating jumbo jets being flown into buildings. Paki intel chief finances one of the hijackers. Just a coincidence, I suppose, as NO ONE COULD IMAGINE, IN THEIR WILDEST DREAMS, THIS KIND OF "NEW WARFARE" BEING DIRECTED AGAINST AMERICAN PEOPLE AND PROPERTY.

4. The Minnesota Office of the FBI was warned by Eagan, Minnesota flight trainer of the 20th hijacker, Zaccharia Moussaoui, that these Arabs could use their training to fly planes into buildings and referenced the effects of exploding jet fuel. The Minneapolis FBI, PRIOR TO 9/11, attempted to obtain search warrants to Moussaoui's computer under a PRE-EXISTING 1978 ANTI-TERRORISM LAW. The agents were heading in the right direction, but in the words of FBI Legal Officer, SA Colleen Rowley, Minneapolis was "sabotaged" by Washington, with FBI agents' affadavits for search warrant being ALTERED by parties in the headquarters.

Oh, I think they had an idea of what Al Qaeda was cooking up, and had a golden opportunity to stop it, but somehow, for some reason, SOMEBODY DROPPED THE BALL.

We don't need any more anti-terrorism laws. The 1978 law would have worked if the bureaucracy had let it.
158 posted on 03/09/2003 5:58:27 PM PST by roughrider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
I've found debating libertarians on real world issues is pointless. They live in a very simple world where everything will come roses if you just follow their philosophy. They may be good logicians but their fatal flaw is that they make up their premises in order to fit the conclusions. Ultimately they put their faith in ideas and none at all in individual people, which leads to unworkable solutions.
159 posted on 03/09/2003 6:04:24 PM PST by Dat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: strela
There are inadvertent discharges of firearms every day in the military, on police forces, at private ranges, and in private homes and businesses. How many airliners full of passengers downed by a stray round are worth the dubious "safety factor" of thrusting a .38 Special into the hands of every pilot whether he wants it or not?

There are inadvertent crashes of automobiles every day across the nation, yet people still drive. There are inadvertent drownings in 3 inches of water of infants, yet people still have children and people still bathe. There are inadvertent chokings on food every day, yet people still yet. Your argument does not hold water.

When I was taught how to handle a firearm, one thing that was drummed into MY head was "Simply having a firearm does not make you Rambo or invincible."

No, but the terrorists most likely would not have careened those airplanes into the WTC and the Pentagon. There are also special bullets designed to puncture human tissue but not airplane bulkheads.

Ah yes, I was wondering when you were going to get around to this one. In America, people are innocent until proven guilty. Sorry to hear about the country you apparently hail from.

Well, if you're a cop and you're told to be on the lookout for a white guy 5'10" who just robbed a bank, are you going to spend time looking closely at black men? I didn't think so. It isn't attempting to prove anyone guilty, it's vigilance. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Maybe you should get that through your head.

Even Superman wouldn't have been able to foresee and prevent at least four separate hijackings, all on the same day, all unexpectedly, all employing a devastating new type of attack on American property and people. 9/11 was the bellwether of a new type of war. And, sitting back and attacking the people fighting that war like you're doing isn't helping us win the war.

Sorry, but criticism of the government at any time is valid. I fully support President Bush and the Armed Forces in the War on Terror, but others things I do disagree with. The TSA comes to mind and so does the Patriot Act.

If you (and the LP) have all the answers to terrorism as you claim, then you should either go to work for the federal government and start enacting your wonderful ideas, or start garnering more than .03 percent of the vote in national elections and do it via the ballot box. Until you do, you in particular and libertarians in general remain the crazy uncle in the attic of American politics.

How about if the Republicrats and the Democrans loosen the grip they have on the news media? Not allowing the Libertarian and Green Party candidates air time during the presidential/vice-presidential debates was a nice way to suppress others' freedom of speech. As long as Americans believe that there are only two political parties, as you Repressivecans prefer to keep it, no other political party will gain much influence. Pretty slick trick they've pulled.

160 posted on 03/09/2003 6:54:47 PM PST by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 281-295 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson