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

Skip to comments.

Blow about to be struck - against liberty (I agree with the LSJ, I can't believe it)
Lansing State Journal ^ | Oct 16 | staff

Posted on 10/15/2001 11:09:32 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan

Anti-terror
Blow about to be struck - against liberty

Most of Congress now seems to be in lockstep with the Bush administration's attempts to add sweeping powers to fight terrorism.

Score one for the terrorists.

America is afraid, and it's about to pay the price for that fear by surrendering some of the freedom it has long fought to keep.

This is not about lofty theory or some dense, irrelevant policy. This is about insidious new laws that will eventually worm their way into thousands of honest people's lives.

The Central Intelligence Agency will be able to spy on American citizens.

There will be expanded use of government searches in your homes and businesses - and government searchers won't have to notify you until later.

There will be a new terrorism crime category that could, conceivably, punish people involved in legal protests.

Authorities will be able to indefinitely detain non-citizens, sometimes without much judicial review.

Initially after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, it appeared an unlikely coalition of conservatives and liberals in Congress would scale back administration requests for new law enforcement powers.

But heightened tension, due in part to the anthrax scare as well as government officials' suggestion that other attacks may be imminent, has jelled public opinion. And thus congressional opinion.

U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, who during the Clinton presidency argued strenuously against tougher anti-terrorism laws, has sought to create new, invasive (and possibly unconstitutional) powers over Americans.

Unfortunately, Michigan's two U.S. senators - Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow - and all House members from mid-Michigan - voted for similar bills in their respective chambers.

The legislation now rests in a Senate-House conference committee. A final package could reach President Bush's desk by early next week.

Congressional conferees have this last chance to establish a greater balance between vigorous anti-terrorism tactics and the absolute necessity not to throw out civil liberties in the process.

The absolute bare minimum should be laws that are "sunsetted" and expire on a given date, unless Congress votes to renew them.

But that, in effect, is a concession to fear.

Our fear is that too many Americans are prepared to surrender their civil liberties for the sake of being, or at least feeling, safer.

What a tragic mistake if that is true.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-151 next last
I can't believe I agree with this. This from the Lansing Statist Journal? Go figure.

And Janet Ashcroft - Screw you.

1 posted on 10/15/2001 11:09:32 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
The reason Ashcroft didn't back Clinton's bunch on new anti-terrorism stuff was because Ashcroft knew what they would do with it. They would have used it against us - which is what the FBI and the IRS had already been doing.

Ashcroft, on the otherhand, does not intend to abuse the law, but use it strictly to root out terrorists in this country.

These are two entirely different approaches to the problem. If you don't understand that, that's why you agree with LSJ. The real issue is character!

2 posted on 10/16/2001 12:02:17 AM PDT by Sueann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sueann
Ashcroft, on the otherhand, does not intend to abuse the law, but use it strictly to root out terrorists in this country.

4. problems.

1. Mid level Bureaucrats in the DOJ that were Klinton holdovers.
2. Ashcroft wanted this, including Orrin Hatch's and Janet Reno's Secret Searches passed.
3. We are one election away from John Edwards, a Klinton clone.
4. The law of unintended consequences. In Michigan, the seatbelt law was never intended to be a primary ticket offense. Right? It is now.

Those that trade freedom for security, deserve neither.

I take my hat off to Russ Feingold, Ron Paul, Ray LaHood, David Obey, and Butch Otter. The rest voted for something as bad as a gun ban.

3 posted on 10/16/2001 12:06:51 AM PDT by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sueann
"The reason Ashcroft didn't back Clinton's bunch on new anti-terrorism stuff was because Ashcroft knew what they would do with it. They would have used it against us - which is what the FBI and the IRS had already been doing."

Sueann, assuming that Bush and Co. are the good guys, do you think we will always have good guys who respect the Constitution and our Liberty in office? What happens when a bad guy wins again?

4 posted on 10/16/2001 12:10:27 AM PDT by Badray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
And Janet Ashcroft - Screw you.

Yep and Janet Reno would have screwed you. How dare you compare Ashcroft to Reno. If Reno had been in DOJ, there would have been a major push for gun control . Also Reno would not be looking out for the safety of "all" Americans from terrorism , but trying to make political points. Ashcroft has actually changed the DOJ position that owning firearms is an "individual" right.

But you go ahead Dan and agree with the majority of democrat politicians like Obey, Feingold, and Barbara Lee who voted against the anti-terror measures. These are the people who will screw you not John Ashcroft.

5 posted on 10/16/2001 12:27:05 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
I take my hat off to Russ Feingold, Ron Paul, Ray LaHood, David Obey, and Butch Otter. The rest voted for something as bad as a gun ban.

Oh BTW Dan, since you have so much animus towards Ashcroft's policies, why don't we see which politicians agree with your animus towards Ashcroft's policies.

--- NAYS 79 ---(Note: Republicans who against the bill are noted with an R)

Ackerman, Jackson-Lee, Payne, Baldwin, Jefferson, Peterson, Barrett, Johnson, E. B., Rahall, Becerra, Jones (OH), Rangel, Blumenauer, Kaptur, Rivers, Bonior, Kilpatrick, Roybal-Allard Boucher, Kleczka, Rush, Brown, Kucinich, Sabo, Capuano, LaHood(R), Sanders(I-socialist) Clayton, Lee, Schakowsky, Clyburn, Lewis (GA), Scott, Conyers, Markey, Serrano, Coyne, McDermott, Solis, Cummings, McGovern, Stark, Davis, McKinney, Thompson, DeFazio, Meek, Tierney, DeGette, Meeks, Udall(CO), Delahunt, Millender-McDonald, Udall(NM), Doggett, Miller(George), Velazquez, Farr, Mink, Visclosky, Filner, Nadler, Waters, Frank, Oberstar, Watson, Hastings, Olver, Watt (NC), Hilliard, Otter(R), Woolsey, Hinchey, Owens, Wu, Honda, Pastor, Jackson, Paul(R),

As you can see Dan the majority of the representatives who voted no against the anti-terror measure were some of Janet Reno's biggest supporters and John Ashcroft's biggest critics.

6 posted on 10/16/2001 1:20:05 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sueann
These are two entirely different approaches to the problem. If you don't understand that, that's why you agree with LSJ. The real issue is character!

Your dubious diagnosis is giving me a cerebral thrombosis! What happens after Clintigula II becomes emperor?
7 posted on 10/16/2001 1:36:02 AM PDT by Hemlock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hemlock
Then I guess folks better get out there and not waste a single vote.
8 posted on 10/16/2001 1:57:22 AM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
They've got to take away our freedoms to protect our freedoms. Idiocy.

What ever happened to give me liberty or give me death?

9 posted on 10/16/2001 2:03:52 AM PDT by servantoftheservant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: Sueann
Ashcroft, on the otherhand, does not intend to abuse the law, but use it strictly to root out terrorists in this country.

But what happens in 10 years when we have another Clinton-like President?
12 posted on 10/16/2001 4:21:06 AM PDT by Ptaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sueann
Ashcroft, on the otherhand, does not intend to abuse the law, but use it strictly to root out terrorists in this country.

Dear Mr. Ashcroft:

How to root out terrorists without Americans losing liberties.

Step one: Read the Constitution, making sure to pay special attention to the BOR.

Step two: deport all illegals.

Step three: Close and protect our borders from illegal entry.

13 posted on 10/16/2001 4:30:31 AM PDT by LiberteeBell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows.

Scary to think that the best hope in the Senate right now are most likely Democrats.

14 posted on 10/16/2001 4:34:32 AM PDT by rainingred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Why am I not surprised that you support this legislation?

Do you consider yourself a constitutional conservative?

15 posted on 10/16/2001 4:46:57 AM PDT by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dane
I call them as I see them, and don't put blind faith into party members. I'm glad Ashcroft backs the 2nd amendment, but I also care about the FOURTH Amendment.

I happen to come from the Butch Otter wing of the GOP. Otter, LaHood, and Paul backed it. That's good enough for me.

I take every law with the view that a Reno, Klinton, or some midlevel bureaucrat like Winston Blair will enforce them. It's the law of unintended consequences.

16 posted on 10/16/2001 8:09:42 AM PDT by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Badray
I have no idea - but hopefully, we have prayed enough and taught our children enough that we will be spared another Clinton in the White House.
17 posted on 10/16/2001 6:56:19 PM PDT by Sueann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hemlock
The only way that happens is if we sit on our blessed assurance and don't vote!! Waving flags is great! But, the real test of a patriot is DO YOU VOTE!!! If you don't, you have no one to blame but yourself. If you do, then get out there and help the precincts get out the vote too.

And ... I don't want to hear any whining about "I live in a democratic district". I am surrounded with 'em. I have NO ONE SUPPORTING MY POSITION IN CONGRESS (not locally, not state, not federal). However, come election time, I will be volunteering again - and I will take a vacation day on election day and I will walk my section of town and knock on every door and leave flyers everywhere. Since I have done that, I might be entitled to whine, but I still don't!

18 posted on 10/16/2001 7:05:42 PM PDT by Sueann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: D Joyce
Well then, just sit around and whine about it!!
19 posted on 10/16/2001 7:09:08 PM PDT by Sueann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sueann
If you believe that, want to buy some land in Afgahnistan?
I trust NO politician regardless of their party. Mark my words, this is a forerunner of the new world order which will be used against any potential freedom fighters.
If you are stupid enough to believe the BS coming from any politician or bureaucrat, then you do not deserve freedom.
I'm speaking generally and not to you personally.
I AM NOT AFRAID! I AM NOT DEPRESSED! I DO NOT FEAR THE FUTURE! My faith is in the Creator , not man.
John
20 posted on 10/16/2001 7:10:01 PM PDT by poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-151 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