• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Gee, Is America Slowly Coming Back To It's Senses?

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think the "Patriot" Act just needs to be completely done away with and this is a position which I refuse to compromise on. It was a mistake to pass the "Patriot" Act. The only negotiations that needs to be going on is the complete and total banning of the "Patriot" Act. This period of time in American history will go down as a time where American freedom and democracy was threatened to be destroyed the most, more than anytime in American history, not necessarily by terrorists, but by the US government seeking to exploit the September 11 attacks as an opportunity to strengthen it's grip over the common ordinary citizen's life and to erradicate his/her right to freedom:

USA Patriot Act Faces Opposition in Senate By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
36 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Several Patriot Act provisions that the Bush administration says are crucial in the fight to stop terrorism on U.S. soil may only be around for another couple of weeks.

A coalition of Senate Democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans is threatening to filibuster a congressional agreement to renew 16 key portions of the USA Patriot Act before they expire Dec. 31.

A showdown vote was scheduled Friday, with the White House and its congressional allies rejecting suggestions for a short-term extension of the current law as is. White House allies said they would prefer to let the 16 temporary provisions expire completely rather than give critics more time to add additional restrictions on the FBI's ability to comb through Americans' computer files and bank and library records.

Making most of the Act's provisions permanent is a priority for both the Bush administration and Republican leaders on Capitol Hill before Congress adjourns for the year.

The House on Wednesday passed a House-Senate compromise bill to renew the Act that supporters say added significant safeguards to the law. These supporters predict doom and gloom if the Patriot Act's critics win and the provisions expire.

The failure to renew the provisions would be "interpreted by our enemies as somehow inviting or even enabling further terrorist attacks on U.S. soil," Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah, said.

But the critics, who include senators like Democrat Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Republican Larry Craig of Idaho, say they don't want the Patriot Act to expire — they just want enough time to improve the bill to the point where it doesn't infringe on American liberties.

"Continued good-faith negotiation will result in solving the problems in a way that will be acceptable to a vast majority of this body and will not in any way diminish the ability of our law enforcement and intelligence organizations to do their job," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., one of the original Democratic sponsors of the Patriot Act.

Congress passed the Patriot Act overwhelmingly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The law expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers against suspected terrorists, their associates and financiers.
Moments later, the senior Democrat on the issue, Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), D-Vt., told reporters that more than 40 votes exist to sustain a filibuster in a test vote Friday.

The bill's opponents say the original act was rushed into law, and Congress should take more time now to make sure the rights of innocent Americans are safeguarded before making most of the expiring provisions permanent.

They says the current Patriot Act gives government too much power to investigate people's private lives.

"Folks, when we're dealing with civil liberties, you don't compromise them," said Craig, a board member of the National Rifle Association.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051216/ap_on_go_co/patriot_act
 

Paul

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
Location
Watertown NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I personally have no problem with a few of my rights being curtailed for the safety of the nation. If you are innocent than you should have nothing to worry about, why all the fuss. At airports middle-eastern people are going to be checked more that others because the terrorists who blew up the towers were 90% Middle Eastern. We are just checking them not sending them to camps, like the japanese. Although that was constitutional according to Korimatsu vs US (1944)
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Paul said:
I personally have no problem with a few of my rights being curtailed for the safety of the nation.

I do. I have a big problem with my rights being curtailed for the "safety of the nation." As Benjamin Franklin said, those who would trade a liberty for security, deserve neither.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
TimmyBoy said:
I do. I have a big problem with my rights being curtailed for the "safety of the nation." As Benjamin Franklin said, those who would trade a liberty for security, deserve neither.
What are you afraid of, Timmy? Come on, you can tell us?
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
KCConservative said:
What are you afraid of, Timmy? Come on, you can tell us?
I am afraid of a dictatorship being established in this country.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
TimmyBoy said:
I am afraid of a dictatorship being established in this country.
I welcome any inconvenience in order to keep us safe. Airport pat downs, cameras on city streets, searching my internet activity, noe of it bothers me. You know why, because they always find an upstanding citizen and let me go on my way. Hey, I'm glad they're looking for the bad guys. So come on, Timmy, tell us what you're really afraid of.
 

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
galenrox said:
I'll tell you what I'm afraid of, I'm afraid of the government, namely I don't trust the government to remain unoppressive if given the ability to become oppressive. You know who else was afraid of this? The founding fathers.
That may be true - but you'll note that in all the instances where the government cutrailed certain rights due to national times of crisis, the government gave those liberties back once the criis was over.

Excepting all the crap they thought up during the depression, that is.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
galenrox said:
yeah, but we're in a sort of unending crisis. The war on terror is less similar to other wars, and more similar to things like "the war on poverty" or "the war on drugs", in that it's not really created with the idea of it ever really ending, and thus there's no real point in the forseeable future that those in power would willingly give back our civil liberties.
Heh heh, you don't ever trust the government with your freedom. That's like making a deal with the devil.
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2005
Messages
845
Reaction score
305
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Thinking back on all the real patriots who gave their lives to ensure I have those civil liberties, I have to ask myself, would I be willing to die to in order to keep them? While I freely admit that I am a lazy coward, I have no qualms accepting the remote risk of dying in a terrorist attack in order to stave off the slightly less remote risk that the government will violate my rights.
I find it quite telling that, statistically speaking, you're much more likely to die by your own hand (suicide), than you are by a terrorist's.

That Franklin was a smart man, knew what he was talking about.
 
Last edited:

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
1,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Paul said:
I personally have no problem with a few of my rights being curtailed for the safety of the nation. If you are innocent than you should have nothing to worry about, why all the fuss.
KCConservative said:
I welcome any inconvenience in order to keep us safe. Airport pat downs, cameras on city streets, searching my internet activity, noe of it bothers me. You know why, because they always find an upstanding citizen and let me go on my way. Hey, I'm glad they're looking for the bad guys.
So many people turn into big-government liberals when it comes to protecting ourselves from terrorism. You know, I bet if the Feds went door-to-door with latex gloves, they would probably find a lot of terrorists hiding within our borders. KCC, Paul, which one of you will be the first to bend over for them? Seriously, when will you draw the line? After they install car bomb checkpoints every 5 miles? Screw that! Never never let the victims of 9/11 die in veign, by letting their killers terrorize us into handing over the very freedoms and liberties that make our country great. You might as well spit on the grave of every American soldier in history who died in order to give you the life you have today.
 
Last edited:

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,226
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
I also have many reservations on the Patriot Act. Some elements however, are very necessary simply due to modernity. Example. Like many people in this Information Age, most terrorists use cell phones... throw-away technology. They use one for a few days and then toss it and simply get another one with a different number. The Patriot Act covers a huge loophole in wiretap law by having a federal judge assign a wiretap order to a person rather than a particular phone number. While the Patriot Act certainly needs an overhaul, certain elements remain crucial to preventing homeland terrorism. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.



 
Top Bottom