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

To: RightOnline
I've supported almost everything Bush has done. I'm not even too worried what this admin will do with the "Patriot Act", it's what some future admin would do with it.

It's an example of the worst kind of lawmaking that is ripe for extreme abuse and the sooner it's cut to shreds the better.

I know you addressed this in your post, but it IS without doubt very unconstitutional.

178 posted on 11/24/2001 5:53:53 AM PST by AAABEST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: AAABEST
"It's an example of the worst kind of lawmaking..."

In what way; in what sense? Emergency legislation during time of war, a type of war heretofore unknown in/by this country? What laws would you propose (that's what I asked in reply #20) to facilitate the tracking down of these Bad Guys within our borders?

"...that is ripe for extreme abuse and the sooner it's cut to shreds the better."

NO argument from me there, and you're right.......I did address this earlier.

"I know you addressed this in your post, but it IS without doubt very unconstitutional."

Is it? I haven't seen a Constitutional challenge to the legislation yet. I know that there are people far smarter than I am who can comb through it carefully and judge the constitutionality of this legislation. I just haven't seen evidence of that yet. I understand Emergency War Powers, I understand giving the Chief Executive/CinC the requisite power and authority to prosecute a war, though. I just haven't seen hard-core proof that this Act crosses the line into the realm of "un-constitutional power grabbing and rights usurpation". I remain open-minded on this, for I have NO desire whatsoever to see MY rights.......or yours.........taken away or unnecessarily abridged.

You know what I think is causing so much trouble with all this, AAABEST? It's the use of the term "war" when describing our conflict against terrorism. It's historically a very specific term with well-understood "rules" and procedures. What we're dealing with now fits no such rules; fits no such procedures. We're not meeting a clear-cut, massed enemy on the field of battle. We're not fighting over turf or mineral resources; we have no clear-cut battle lines, and we don't even really know exactly who the opposing combatants are or where they are. If we called this, for example, a "conflict" or something other than "war", what impact would that have on legislative procedures, military procedures, Executive Branch powers, etc.? Vietnam aside, I really don't quite know at this point.

One thing we all CAN agree on: Bush isn't waging a Balkans-style fiasco or merely launching a few cruise missiles at some poor saps JUST to get his name out of the headlines for boffing yet another teenager........or to obscure the latest allegations of serious crimes.

Bush is fighting back; WE'RE fighting back as the direct result of a vicious, deadly, horrific attack on our soil. We can cloak our response in any mantle we choose, but to me..........it's war.

182 posted on 11/24/2001 6:14:39 AM PST by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies ]

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