• 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.

Patriot act II

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,905
Reaction score
6,024
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Source: WND

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]Patriot Act II – is it a prudent step to stem terrorist activity in the U.S. and protect the homeland, or a Draconian measure designed to strip the last vestiges of freedom from the American landscape? [/font] [font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]Such is the question increasingly on the minds of Internet users, many of whom come down squarely on the side of legal experts who warn of the legislation's danger. Though an actual bill to further expand federal law-enforcement powers has not been introduced, activists for months have communicated online about what they see as potential Nazi-like developments.
[/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]The first USA Patriot Act – or the Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act – was passed in 2001 in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks. It gave federal authorities new power to wiretap phones, confiscate property of suspected terrorists, spy on residents and conduct searches. Its importance to the war on terror was stressed to members of Congress at that time – most of whom were not allowed to read the bill before it was passed, noted Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, a Patriot Act opponent. [/font]

[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]Though Patriot Act II has not been officially introduced in Congress, a Department of Justice draft version of the bill, named the Domestic Security Enhancement Act, was obtained in January 2003 by the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit investigative organization. The draft [a .pdf document] is marked "Confidential, not for distribution." The document includes an analysis of the expanded powers and a draft of the bill itself.
[/font]
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Well if the World Net Daily says it- it must be true. Joseph Farah and his WorldNetDaily maybe the only organization posing as press that has been more discredited then FNC. These are the same douche bags who reported that the US was hiding the WMD's they found. From an April 27th "Frontpage" article. In virtually every case -- chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missiles -- the United States has found the weapons and the programs that [Saddam Hussein] successfully concealed for 12 years from U.N. weapons inspectors.

It get's better. After Gen. Wesley Clark made a speach in which he stated "We need a vision of how we're going to move humanity ahead, and then we need to harness science to do it." the World Net Daily promptly came out with an article titled : [font=times new roman, times, serif]"[font=times new roman, times, serif]Gen. Clark's goal: Time travel: Candidate calls exceeding light speed 'my only faith-based initiative'", World Net Daily, Sept. 30, 2003http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34860 the article goes on to state that Clark said "he has argued with physicists about the probability of time travel, but that despite opposition, he just has to "believe it," adding, "It's my only faith-based initiative." Clark called that statement "Absurd" and none of the people in attendance during Clark's speach heard anything like that. After the WND was called on this B.S. they added a note to the bottom of their story saying basically some of it might have been in error. Nothing like painting somebody out to be completely bat shit crazy and then instead of pulling the piece just add a small note at the bottom saying "okay maybe we were wrong"[/font][/font]

World Net Daily- your daily source for bullshit.
 
Top Bottom