Patriot act, 2 supported it, 1 opposed

Discussion in 'Politics' started by tpahl, Aug 5, 2004.

  1. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    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

     
  2. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    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.
     
  3. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    Are we at war? Who are we at war with?
     
  4. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,548
    Thanks Received:
    8,163
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,163
    Um hello? Did you miss the planes flying into the WTC on 911?
     
  5. Democrat4Bush
    Offline

    Democrat4Bush Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Messages:
    228
    Thanks Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Orlando
    Ratings:
    +27
    Osama declared war on us, we responded.


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

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    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
     
  7. MJDuncan1982
    Offline

    MJDuncan1982 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Messages:
    506
    Thanks Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Mississippi
    Ratings:
    +25
    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.
     
  8. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    that system is in inherent danger when any party has majority rule of it.
     
  9. MJDuncan1982
    Offline

    MJDuncan1982 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Messages:
    506
    Thanks Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Mississippi
    Ratings:
    +25
    Which system? I'm not following completely. :cof:
     
  10. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    our system of government. checks and balances don't mean squat when a political party has an overwhelming majority in power.
     

Share This Page