Newt wants stronger Patriot act, do U???

[Avorysuds]

Yes Newt is done... If the primaries were next week maybe not but it's over a month away, time is the enemy for Newt, as it was Cain, Perry and Mitt.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And you somehow think democrats aren't the sameway?

The fact is the PA was passed by a republican Congress and signed into law by a republican president. Conservative jurists have exhibited a propensity to rule against individual liberty in favor of state (police) authority to ‘fight crime/terror.’

It is therefore logical to infer that a republican president would appoint judges to the Federal courts and justices to the High Court who would likewise rule against individual liberty in favor of state (police) authority to ‘fight crime/terror.’

 

[paulitician]

Big Government advocates in both Parties want it. This current President is the biggest hypocrite of all on this issue. Him and the Democrats had a Super Majority at one point no? So it's a bit unfair to target Gingrich alone. If they wanted to get rid of the Patriot Act,they would have already done it. So do the math.

 

[Contumacious]

You know something is fishy about a piece of legislation when they have to come up with a name like Patriot Act to get it to pass.

If they called it the Abandonment of Civil Liberties act it never would have gotten out of committee

I get your drift.

Had the called the Social Security Act graduated Income Tax part II, it would have never passed.

.

 

[Avorysuds]

And you somehow think democrats aren't the sameway?

The fact is the PA was passed by a republican Congress and signed into law by a republican president. Conservative jurists have exhibited a propensity to rule against individual liberty in favor of state (police) authority to ‘fight crime/terror.’

It is therefore logical to infer that a republican president would appoint judges to the Federal courts and justices to the High Court who would likewise rule against individual liberty in favor of state (police) authority to ‘fight crime/terror.’

Stop playing dumb and wake up already...

Obama re passed it, you know this. Don't be what you hate. I believe Obama passed it witha Dem congress... So we get it, you hate Bush but like Obama for having the same policies.

Obama signs extension of Patriot Act - USATODAY.com

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And you somehow think democrats aren't the sameway?

The fact is the PA was passed by a republican Congress and signed into law by a republican president. Conservative jurists have exhibited a propensity to rule against individual liberty in favor of state (police) authority to ‘fight crime/terror.’

It is therefore logical to infer that a republican president would appoint judges to the Federal courts and justices to the High Court who would likewise rule against individual liberty in favor of state (police) authority to ‘fight crime/terror.’

Some of us conservatives did not agree with the act nor do we agree with it still. I really don't care about some high court ruling. I know right from wrong and do not need someone else dictating to me what is right and wrong.

 

[The T]

The PATRIOT Act and the Constitution: Five Key Points

1. It protects civil liberties and provides for the common defense

2. Expectation of privacy is not unlimited

3. The law provides significant safeguards

4. It has passed constitutional muster.

5. Disagreements over the role of government are different
from actual abuse.

Little Danger of Abuse
The key to the PATRIOT Act is empowering government to do the right things while exercising oversight to prevent any abuse of authority. As long as lawmakers keep a vigilant eye on police authority, the federal courts remains open, and the debate about governmental conduct is a vibrant part of the American dialogue, the risk of excessive encroachment on our fundamental liberties is minimal.

Key here. Lawmakers have to be vigilant, as do the courts as to abuses and those alledged. When the line has been crossed? That abuse must be dealt with.

_____________________________________________________

As to the OP's contention? Sure, he stated it. Perhaps it would have been helpful IF the OP would have dug a little deeper than just a mention in a news story with little or no elaboration as to what Newt really meant?

Asked the first question on the Patriot Act, which extended counter-terrorism search and surveillance powers in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, he set the tone by sounding tough and authoritative.

"I'd look at strengthening it because I think the dangers are literally that great," Gingrich said, adding that there should be "an honest understanding that all of us will be in danger for the rest of our lives."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You know something is fishy about a piece of legislation when they have to come up with a name like Patriot Act to get it to pass.

And a way to punish those opposed, in that they’re ‘un-patriotic.’

It has passed constitutional muster. No single provision of the PATRIOT Act has ever been found unconstitutional.

Incorrect, one shouldn’t trust the Heritage Foundation, they’re clearly prone to lying:

Part of Patriot Act ruled unconstitutional - US news - Security - msnbc.com

Key here. Lawmakers have to be vigilant, as do the courts as to abuses and those alledged. When the line has been crossed? That abuse must be dealt with.

You’ve got to be kidding – ‘Lawmakers have to be vigilant’? Talk about the fox guarding the hen house. What kind of Federal government-hating radical rightwing extremist are you?

 

[paulitician]

I think this is a somewhat unfair attack on Gingrich. It singles him out yet all Big Government advocates in both Parties support this too. He's far from being the only one. The Democrats and this current President actually promised to get rid of the Patriot Act. But as soon as they got the power they only strengthened it. Personally i have more of a problem with lying hypocrites. Gingrich has always supported the Patriot Act so i'm not surprised with this stance. He has been honest & up front about it. I disagree with his stance but at least he's being honest. Obama and the Democrats on the other hand,have been a dishonest disgrace on this issue. They had a Super Majority yet refused to get rid of the Patriot Act as promised. That is unforgivable in my opinion.

 

[The T]

I think this is a somewhat unfair attack on Gingrich. It singles him out yet all Big Government advocates in both Parties support this too. He's far from being the only one. The Democrats and this current President actually promised to get rid of the Patriot Act. But as soon as they got the power they only strengthened it. Personally i have more of a problem with lying hypocrites. Gingrich has always supported the Patriot Act so i'm not surporised with this stance. He has been honest & up front about it. I disagree with his stance but at least he's being honest. Obama and the Democrats on the other hand,have been a dishonest disgrace on this issue. They had a Super Majority yet refused to get rid of the Patriot Act as promised. That is unforgivable in my opinion.

All for election purposes...BAIT and switch. The Liberals should be infuriated...but will vote for Obama again, won't they? PARTY over country every time.

 

[rightwinger]

The Patriot Act was supposed to provide short term emergency powers. It is now going on ten years and going strong. Once you give up constitutional rights, it is hard to get them back

 

[paulitician]

The Patriot Act was supposed to provide short term emergency powers. It is now going on ten years and going strong. Once you give up constitutional rights, it is hard to get them back

Boy you sure nailed that one. We were promised the Patriot Act would be ended. But that hasn't happened. Shame on all those Politicians who promised to get rid of it. They're a real disgrace.

 

[ScienceRocks]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Patriot Act was supposed to provide short term emergency powers. It is now going on ten years and going strong. Once you give up constitutional rights, it is hard to get them back

OK who hijack rightwingers account and posting for him?

 

[1ManRev]

I know I'm addressing this issue a little late, but rather than starting a new thread I figured I would just build on top of this one. For those who advocate Newt's position and are under the impression that past attacks such as Olklahoma City would not have happened if the Patriot Act were in place... how do you explain Ft. Hood? Sure it wasn't a second 9/11, but it was a killing spree motivated by the very people the PA is supposedly protecting us from. And how about the Christmas Day Underwear bomber? Let's not credit the man's botched attempt to the PA's success.

And don't reply with "This is exactly why Newt was right in saying that the Patriot Act needs to be strengthen." This is the kind of thinking that continues a slippery slope to a police state; you'll lose your liberties and not be that much safer.

Listen to the doctor on stage, and remedy the cause rather than the symptoms of these attacks. In other words, get the f**k out of the Middle East, so we can stop adding fuel to Al Qaeda's cause. AQ will have difficulty convincing potential recruits to attack us if they can't convince them that the evil Americans are out to take over the region.