Napoleon's Nightingale
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2005
- Messages
- 1,670
- Reaction score
- 17
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Trajan Octavian Titus said:Sorry to tell you but the president's first and foremost responsibility is to protect the lives of the American people, the NYT's article has jeopardized national security and put the lives of Americans in danger. As was cited in previous posts on this thread the Patriot Act has served to prevent terrorist attacks on this nation and now you want it repealed I just do not understand the liberals mindset at all.
Napoleon's Nightingale said:I'm sure many of the Germans thought along similar lines when they allowed Hitler to blame and persecute the Jews but that was before it ceased to be so specific and became anyone and everyone with a big nose. Get the point?
Australianlibertarian said:I would argue that Sep 11 could have been prevented if the CIA and FBI shared their information, if their interdepartmental pickering was not there, if airline doors had been reenforced, and piolets were allowed to carry tazers.
Lastly Septemeber 11 could have been prevented, if the U.S intelligence services had more Arabic translaters, that way more of the raw intelligence could be analysed faster.
Maybe some of this stuff is in the Patriot Act, but the problem is that there are some very dangerous powers that have been granted to government, that infringes on individual's rights.
Australianlibertarian said:Well why isn't the Patriot act ammended, or a seperate bill designed to permanently end the Gorelick wall?
Stace said:I refuse to support the Patriot Act. People want to keep saying that 9/11 could have been prevented if we had had it in place beforehand, but I have yet to see any evidence that convinces me. People want to keep saying that it has prevented another attack like 9/11, but again, I haven't seen anything proving that.
You can't tell me that there aren't other measures that can be taken to make our nation more secure, without violating everyone's right to privacy and other civil liberties.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:Here you go proof positive that if the patriot act had been in place 9-11 would not have occurred:
O.K. here's the deal the military intelligence gathering operation able danger had information as to the 9-11 ringleader Mohammad Atta's identity taken from the 20th hijacker's, Zacarias Moussaoui, personnel computer which was recovered after his capture early in the year 2000, however, due to the the Clinton-Gorelick wall, which prevented the F.B.I. from receiving information from intelligence gathering operations, this information was not received by the F.B.I.. The Patriot Act has a provision in it that did away with the Gorelick wall but guess what that provision is set to expire in two weeks due to the Democratic filibuster of the Patriot Act renewal bill.
Stace said:And where exactly was this information obtained? Source, link? Because I can tell it wasn't quoted directly from the source, too many misspelled words.
Stace said:I refuse to support the Patriot Act. People want to keep saying that 9/11 could have been prevented if we had had it in place beforehand, but I have yet to see any evidence that convinces me. People want to keep saying that it has prevented another attack like 9/11, but again, I haven't seen anything proving that.
You can't tell me that there aren't other measures that can be taken to make our nation more secure, without violating everyone's right to privacy and other civil liberties.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:months and months of research on the Gorelick wall and operation able danger but I found a short cut just type in the words able danger and wikipedia read this, then seperately type Gorelick Memo and wikipedia, on google.
Stace said:I'm still not convinced, but thank you for providing some sources. If nothing else, it makes for interesting reading.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:How can you not be convinced? It's proof positive.
Stace said:How am I not convinced?
1. Though I like Wikipedia, there are certain things that I tend to take with a grain of salt, as anyone can go and edit the information.
2. There's no way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Patriot Act would have prevented 9/11 because it wasn't in place at the time. Just like there's no way to prove that it has prevented further terror attacks because it WAS in place...if we hadn't had it, and we had been attacked again, maybe then I would be convinced, but as that is not the case....I'm not.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:ahh the old compare Bush to Hitler play, that's very clever, think that one up all on your own did ya?
Napoleon's Nightingale said:I'm not comparing anyone to Hitler. I provided a good example of what can happen when we give the executive branch the power to operate above the law, above the constitution, above the judicial branch, above the legislative branch, and above the people. The Patriot Act destroys the system of checks and balances. Perhaps this administration will use it to do good but what about the next administration, and the one after that, and the one after that? I don't think you understand the implications and risks of giving the executive branch such power. The Patriot Act keeps the threat undefined and broad and contradicts the Constitution. We simply do not need it while we have laws that allow for oversight which we do. There would be a simple fix to The Patriot Act..insert an amendment to force the executive branch to follow existing law and provide evidence regarding their opinion of suspected "terrorists" before acting and adhere to the judicial branch in such matters as the law and the Constitution dictates. As it stands whats to stop the executive branch from using the Patriot Act as an excuse to violate everyone's rights instead of just suspected terrorists? Whats to stop it from becoming anyone and everyone with a big nose? I don't want the executive branch wielding that kind of power and the people already said no to such consentrated power more than 200 years ago.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:I don't care about all this I have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt in numerous posts that the Patriot Act would have prevented 9-11 and has prevented numerous other terrorist attacks since its inception; furthermore, the Supreme Court and the 4th district courts have ruled that the president has broader constitutional powers to use any means necessary to provide security to the nation during wartime it's been this way since Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the civil war and F.D.R. locked up the Japanese in internment camps during WW2. You're trying to fight against one hundred odd years of legal precedent. Simply put you have no case.
JustMyPOV said:At this point, there doesn't even have to be a vote to extend the PA for the three month period. Those participating in the fillibuster have already agreed, by unanimous consent to the three month extention. The only way that the PA is going to expire is if the Republican leadership allows it to.
Napoleon's Nightingale said:You've done no such thing..you can't prove a negative. You're applying the golden glory of 20/20 hindsight and the CIA has been drawing names out of a hat for years and it was exposed when 4 of the accussed hijackers were found alive, kicking, and without any links to Al Qaeda in Morocco and Saudi Arabia. The Patriot Act hasn't changed anything. FDR and Abraham Lincoln never demanded that those polices be made permanent, unlike Bush, and the Patriot Act is not restricted by peacetime. The Supreme Court has not ruled one way or the other on the legality of this act and since this administration has become an expert at sweeping it's constitutionally bankrput and illegal policies and actions under the rug, at least until they're leaked to the press, no one knows whats going on here. This administration does not believe in oversight, the seperation of powers, or in an executive branch bound by the articles of the Constitution and that has been made abundantly clear. It is you who has no case sir. This is supposed to be a republic not a monarchy.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:O.K. here's the deal the military intelligence gathering operation able danger had information as to the 9-11 ringleader Mohammad Atta's identity taken from the 20th hijacker's, Zacarias Moussaoui, personnel computer which was recovered after his capture early in the year 2000, however, due to the the Clinton-Gorelick wall, which prevented the F.B.I. from receiving information from intelligence gathering operations, this information was not received by the F.B.I.. The Patriot Act has a provision in it that did away with the Gorelick wall but guess what that provision is set to expire in two weeks due to the Democratic filibuster of the Patriot Act renewal bill.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:And the Supreme Court has not ruled on the Patriot Act specifically but the Supreme Court and the 4th district courts HAVE ruled that the president has broader constitutional powers to use any and all means to provide for the security of the nation during war time and the phone tapping and Patriot act would certainly fall under the category of any means to secure the nation so like I said you have no case.
You've forwarded mights, maybes, and buts..not proof.
9/11 might [emphasis added] have been prevented
Capturing Mohammad Atta would not have prevented 9/11.
military intelligence gathering operation able danger had information as to the 9-11 ringleader Mohammad Atta's identity taken from the 20th hijacker's, Zacarias Moussaoui, personnel computer
Napoleon's Nightingale said:Capturing Mohammad Atta would not have prevented 9/11. And we all know what kind of "information" the CIA cooks up. They didn't even know who most of the hijackers were even after 9/11 and we still don't know. Getting rid of the Gorelick wall would have been fruitless because the intelligence agencies didn't have a big enough budget to operate effectively and still don't. 9/11 might have been prevented if the administration had acted on the intelligence we already had ie that terrorists were planning on using planes in a terrorist attack. You've forwarded mights, maybes, and buts..not proof. It also might have helped if George Tennet was doing his job which he hasn't done.
Napoleon's Nightingale said:Constitutional powers which can only be granted and enacted by Congress. The constitution does NOT give the executive branch the power to operate above the constitution, the law, or Congress under any circumstances. So like I said, it's you who has no case.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:lmfao ya it's the Republicans fault that the Democrats are filibustering the Patriot Act and putting the lives of Americans at risk for the sake of partisan politics. Gotta love that liberal logic.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?