The Patriot Act

Originally posted by jimnyc
And there should be limits. The biggest spoke of is "Freedom of Speech". Does that mean we should be able to yell "fire" in a movie theater for laughs?

I don't have a problem with restrictions if it's in the best interest of our country (and it's safety).

With freedom comes the responsibility entailed in the exercise of that freedom. Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater is the irresponsible use of that freedom, and should be punished. That does not mean that the freedom of speech, or any other freedom should be limited as a whole. Those who, through irresponsible use of their freedoms, bring harm to themselves, others, or both should suffer the consequences of those actions.

Society should not bear the punishment for the irresposibility of its individual members. That might work in kindergarten, but not in society as a whole.


<i><b>"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
<center>- Benjamin Franklin, 1759</center></b></i>
 
Originally posted by eric
Explain that to the terrorists !:rolleyes:

You can't. They have no basic understanding of this concept. They are either blinded by whatever dogma they adhere to, or by hatred, lust for power, or any number of reasons. However, that does not excuse them from the consequences of their actions.

But they are free to act in society, and so must suffer the consequences of their actions, be they imprisonment or death even though they will never truly claim resposibility for those actions. They are the human equivalent of rabid dogs. They must be put down, but you cannot violate the rest of society's rights in the process. To do so gives them the victory and vindication they seek.
 
Agreed, but I don't see a big violation of rights in the Act. Things like tying phone taps to a person instead of a physical phone, hell that is just logical. Keep in mind that technology is moving faster than legislation and we have to rethink many of our current laws.
 
Originally posted by eric
Agreed, but I don't see a big violation of rights in the Act. Things like tying phone taps to a person instead of a physical phone, hell that is just logical. Keep in mind that technology is moving faster than legislation and we have to rethink many of our current laws.

Rethink...yes, but not in a manner which contravenes the Constitution. In PATRIOT II, leaked by a DOJ staffer last year, there are provisions which allow the Executive Branch to take into custody, detain indefinitely and without charge, deny counsel to and strip of their citizenship any US citizen deemed an "enemy combatant". The term is defined very loosely. For a further analysis, I refer you here:

<center>http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/ramasastry/20030217.html</center>

PATRIOT I, PATRIOT II and other Acts and Orders are laying the foundation for an American police state. If this happens, the terrorists will have won.
 
Bullypulpit, that's some damn avatar you have there!!!! 666, my favorite number!!!! hahahahahah!
 
Originally posted by AtlantaWalter
Isn't that what Stain's theory was?????

That's basically the axiom of any despot. Give the citizenry something to fear, then exploit that fear to curtail freedoms and secure power.
 
ACLU Says Rare Veto Threat Shows Viability of Patriot Act Fix, Assails Justice Department’s Deaf Ear to Bipartisan, Popular Criticism

January 29, 2004


WASHINGTON - <i>Responding to the White House’s veto threats against the bipartisan Security and Freedom Ensured Act, which would surgically tailor certain overbroad Patriot Act provisions, the American Civil Liberties Union today pointed to the move as proof of the measure’s viability on the Hill and criticized the Department of Justice’s continuing unwillingness to engage its critics in public and even-keeled debate.

"The Attorney General’s attack on the SAFE Act shows how out of step the Bush Administration is with growing national concern over the Patriot Act," said Anthony Romero, ACLU Executive Director. "Ironically, the veto threat also demonstrates that the SAFE Act is becoming an increasingly viable legislative measure, one that has obviously put the Ashcroft Justice Department on the defensive."

The SAFE Act - sponsored by Sens. Larry Craig (R-ID), Richard Durbin (D-IL), John Sununu (R-NH) and Russell Feingold (D-WI) - had largely passed under the radar on Capitol Hill until today, when the Department of Justice confirmed in a letter that the President’s senior advisors will urge its veto if it arrives on his desk.

But, because the SAFE Act has broad bipartisan support from key members of Congress, it can go forward in a variety of ways that would make it difficult for the administration to follow through on any veto threat.</i>

A few of the more conscientious members of Congress are beginning to realize what they did in passing the USA PATRIOT Act largely unread. They are having serious second thoughts and are seeking to reign in the administration and Herr Ashccroft.

For the full text, goto:

<center>http://www.aclu.org/news/NewsPrint.cfm?ID=14833&c=206</center>
 
I agree, the ACLU isn't a source from which I will take political news. However, as this thread isn't about the ACLU but the Patriot Acts, I will say that I don't think they are over broad or dangerous.

All laws infringe on someone's rights and all laws assume that those enforcing them will not egregiously overstep their authority or apply the law in unfair, illegal ways. It isn't right when police knowingly arrest innocent people and frame them with false evidence. But that's certainly not a reason to make murder legal.

People's opposition to the Patriot Acts based on enforcement problems are valid- but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Protect their enforcement if you will but completely ignoring the viability of the provisions is another matter entirely. The Patriot Act does not create new law nor are any of the acts it makes legal (on behalf of the government) unprecedented. In limited areas, all these acts are allowed anyway---why now is there such a problem? The reason that they are so scrutinized at this point is because THEY CAN BE.

Remember that o ye who believe that all freedoms have been lost due to their enactment.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top