Patriot act, 2 supported it, 1 opposed

[tpahl]

The following is todays position paper from badnarik. Unlike Kerry and Bush, Badnarik is strongly opposed to the PATRIOT act.

http://badnarik.org/Issues/RightsOfAccused.php

Among the complaints our Founding Fathers cited in their Declaration of Independence as justification for throwing off the British government, we find the following:

"For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury ... For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences ... For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government ..."

In the case of "enemy combatants" and other "detainees," the choice is quite simple: They may be held as prisoners of war, with all the protections afforded them by the Geneva Convention (a treaty ratified by the Senate pursuant to its Constitutional Authority), or they may be held as accused criminals—with all the protections afforded them by the Constitution. There are no other lawful alternatives.

As your president, I will act swiftly to have all "detainees" properly classified.

Those charged with crimes will receive access to counsel, speedy public trial by jury, the right to confront their accusers, to examine the evidence against them and to produce evidence and witnesses in their own defense.

 

[5stringJeff]

The following is todays position paper from badnarik. Unlike Kerry and Bush, Badnarik is strongly opposed to the PATRIOT act.

http://badnarik.org/Issues/RightsOfAccused.php

If the accused are American citizens, then I agree. I have stated on these boards that I was opposed to the Bush administration's treatment of Jose Padilla; since he is an American citizen, he deserves the rights afforded him, including the right to trial by jury, etc.

I do not agree that foreign terrorists deserve the same treatment. Yet, these terrorists are not soldiers in the sense that they are fighting for a country's army, so they don't fall under the protection of the Geneva convention.

IMO what Bush is doing with these terrorists is justified.

 

[tpahl]

If the accused are American citizens, then I agree. I have stated on these boards that I was opposed to the Bush administration's treatment of Jose Padilla; since he is an American citizen, he deserves the rights afforded him, including the right to trial by jury, etc.

I do not agree that foreign terrorists deserve the same treatment. Yet, these terrorists are not soldiers in the sense that they are fighting for a country's army, so they don't fall under the protection of the Geneva convention.

IMO what Bush is doing with these terrorists is justified.

Are we at war? Who are we at war with?

 

[Avatar4321]

Are we at war? Who are we at war with?

Um hello? Did you miss the planes flying into the WTC on 911?

 

[Democrat4Bush]

Osama declared war on us, we responded.

“By god’s grace,” Bin Laden said on the video, “we have formed with many other Islamic groups and organizations in the Islamic world a front called the International Islamic Front to do jihad against the crusaders and Jews.” “And by god’s grace,” he said later, “the men reacted to this call and ... their actions are going to have a successful result in killing Americans and getting rid of them.”

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_21-8-2002_pg7_26

 

[tpahl]

My point is to say that we are at war (despite congress never declaring.) Congress was not allowed to transfer the decision to go to war to the president and the president was not supposed to go to war without a decleration from congress. Putting all that unconstitutional mess, we are in fact at war as the president reminds us all the time. When at war the people fighting for the other side are called enemy soldiers. Bush has decided to rename them enemy combatants, which is fine, he can call them Enemy evil doers, or enemy bad guys or whatever he wants, but that does not change the fact that they are still enemy soldiers or criminals, not some new third class of imprisoned people.

It may be tempting to say who cares, these people are so evil and bad and wrong that we should not care about their treatment or that they created a new class of imprisoned people. But as I have mentioned before, you should always look at the power you have granted government not in terms of how a moral president you like and trust will use the power, but rather how an immoral untrustworthy president could abuse the power. In this case they could take ANY person and just claim that you are an enemy combatant even if you were born in small town USA and grew up on main street listening to rock and roll playing at the local walmart all your life. You would have no recourse and would be at the mercy of the government. That is not the system of justice invisioned by our founding fathers.

I am glad that Badnarik is standing up against this injustice.

Travis

 

[MJDuncan1982]

tpahl,

I agree with you pretty much 100%. We should never just trust that our leaders will do the right thing. We have to make sure they can't do the wrong thing through our system of checks and balances. Someone once said (anyone know who?) that our government must be set up so any idiot can run it because one day one will.

Some men want only power and the Constitution is a safeguard against that lust taking over our government in case one of them is elected.

 

[DKSuddeth]

tpahl,

I agree with you pretty much 100%. We should never just trust that our leaders will do the right thing. We have to make sure they can't do the wrong thing through our system of checks and balances. Someone once said (anyone know who?) that our government must be set up so any idiot can run it because one day one will.

Some men want only power and the Constitution is a safeguard against that lust taking over our government in case one of them is elected.

that system is in inherent danger when any party has majority rule of it.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Which system? I'm not following completely. :cof:

 

[DKSuddeth]

Which system? I'm not following completely. :cof:

our system of government. checks and balances don't mean squat when a political party has an overwhelming majority in power.

 

[tpahl]

our system of government. checks and balances don't mean squat when a political party has an overwhelming majority in power.

That would be less true if the political party that controlled everything was a political party that consistantly stood up for a limited government. Both the major parties today however do not stand by that principle.

Travis

 

[musicman]

that system is in inherent danger when any party has majority rule of it.

But, the alternative to that is gridlock.

 

[DKSuddeth]

That would be less true if the political party that controlled everything was a political party that consistantly stood up for a limited government. Both the major parties today however do not stand by that principle.

Travis

Don't try to be the righteous mouthpiece for the libertarian party travis. Do you TRULY think that if the libertarian party held 2/3rds of the senate, house, and the whitehouse that they would be any different than the power mad republicans and democrats?

If you do, then you need some serious reality checking.

 

[DKSuddeth]

But, the alternative to that is gridlock.

or non-partisanship. but thats a stretch with todays divisive atmosphere.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

I mean to say (as i do in the post) that our government guards against an individual's lust for power. If a large enough group of people get together then they will have considerable power in our system...then again we are a limited democracy - part of the whole idea.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I mean to say (as i do in the post) that our government guards against an individual's lust for power. If a large enough group of people get together then they will have considerable power in our system...then again we are a limited democracy - part of the whole idea.

I see what you're saying and you're right. When a group or party is concerned though, its much more dangerous for our nations system. Just look at the last 11 years. Gerrymandering, commercial influence, impeachment processes, all just an example of what happens when a political party holds more power than the others.

 

[musicman]

or non-partisanship. but thats a stretch with todays divisive atmosphere.

Amen to that. By the same token, though, I don't think the ideological divide between the two major parties has ever been deeper - not in our lifetime, anyway.

 

[tpahl]

But, the alternative to that is gridlock.

Yes. And I love gridlock. Gridlock is the peoples freind. Think of it this way. After the founders created this nation, how many important laws do you think they missed after say the first 20-30 years? now imagine some of our best minds continueing to meet every year for another 200 years with the sole purpose of trying to make sure our government was just right in terms of outlawing just what was needed and nothing more. Do you really think after 225 years we would still need 100's of laws made every year? I doubt it. After the initial decade or two I think they would have most worked out. As new technology comes out, and as the world changes somewhat, sure there might be a few new laws to work out every year. But generally they are not even that urgent. If they end up debating them for a couple years, they are more likely to come to the right decision. Gridlock prevents too many laws from being passed and also prevents them from being passed quickly and without debate.

The PATRIOT ACT was an example of a law that we all could have benifitted from gridlock. Ron Paul voted no for the sole reason that he was not able to read it before they asked him to vote on it. My question is how in the hell do the other 420 some congressment and all those senators still have their jobs when they vote for things without reading it. The people should never have re-elected any of them for the simple reason that they are not taking their jobs seriously if they are not reading the laws they vote on.

Congress used to be a part time position. I think it should return to that.

Travis

 

[tpahl]

Don't try to be the righteous mouthpiece for the libertarian party travis. Do you TRULY think that if the libertarian party held 2/3rds of the senate, house, and the whitehouse that they would be any different than the power mad republicans and democrats?

If you do, then you need some serious reality checking.

It would not be perfect, no. But it would be much better than what we have now. The republicans do not even pretend to be a party of limited government anymore. To elect them into a majority of congress and the whitehouse and then act surprised when they abuse the power of government (exceed the limits of the constitution) is silly. Of course when they tell you they are going to do something wrong and you elect them, they will do something wrong.

The LP at least is promising to have a limited government. The Republican-Democrats of jeffersons times, promised much the same back in the early 1800's. Was everything perfect? no. but government grew much much much slower and even occasionally grew smaller back then. This I would prefer.

Travis

 

[DKSuddeth]

The PATRIOT ACT was an example of a law that we all could have benifitted from gridlock. Ron Paul voted no for the sole reason that he was not able to read it before they asked him to vote on it. My question is how in the hell do the other 420 some congressment and all those senators still have their jobs when they vote for things without reading it. The people should never have re-elected any of them for the simple reason that they are not taking their jobs seriously if they are not reading the laws they vote on.

Congress used to be a part time position. I think it should return to that.

Travis

It's called tyranny. They were threatened with claims of being 'unpatriotic' if they didn't pass it. They would be blamed for the next terrorist attack, if it happened.