Should we renew the Patriot Act?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 6:05 am

U.S. House Votes to Extend Revised Patriot Act

The Washington Post

Charles Babington December 15, 2005

The House voted 251 to 174 yesterday to renew the USA Patriot Act, setting up a confrontation over the revised anti-terrorism measure with a group of Democratic and Republican senators who say it would not go far enough to protect civil liberties.

The Patriot Act, approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, made it easier for the FBI to conduct secret searches, monitor telephone calls and e-mails, and obtain bank records and other personal documents in connection with terrorism investigations.

Civil liberties groups say the proposed renewal would do too little to let targeted people challenge national security letters and types of subpoenas that give the FBI substantial latitude in deciding what records -- including those from libraries -- should be surrendered.

The White House and GOP leaders urged Republicans to support the president and extend the law, which is scheduled to expire Dec. 31. "Renewing the Patriot Act before it expires in December is literally a matter of life and death," said Rep. Ric Keller (R-Fla.). Forty-four Democrats joined 207 Republicans in voting to renew key provisions of the act, with some modifications, for four years. Eighteen Republicans, 155 Democrats and one independent voted against it.

Democrats voting yes included party Whip Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) and Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee. Harman said the bill is needed "to track communications by e-mail and Internet, including the use of Internet sites in libraries, and to prevent and disrupt plots against us."

President Bush hailed the vote, saying the act "is essential to fighting the war on terror and preventing our enemies from striking America again." However, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said during the House debate: "We're not protecting ourselves, but we are endangering our liberties."

An unusual coalition of Democrats and moderate-to-conservative Republicans in the Senate opposes the bill. Members say they will support a filibuster, promised by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), intended to kill it through long debate. Stopping a filibuster would require 60 votes in the 100-member Senate, where Republicans hold 55 seats.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), who supports the bill, told reporters yesterday that he believes that "ultimately we're going to be successful." But top aides said the vote was too close to predict the final outcome.

Frist said he would not accept a "short-term extension" of the existing Patriot Act. But many Democrats and some Republicans want a one- or three-month renewal of the law to allow more time to negotiate the proposed four-year extension after Congress's winter recess. The first votes testing the filibuster are expected tomorrow.

The sharpest debate in both chambers has centered on proposed changes to provisions that allow investigators to demand business records, library logs and other items connected to suspects. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who supports the bill, wrote a seven-page letter to colleagues rebutting claims that the revisions would do too little to protect innocent people from invasion of privacy. Investigators would have to show a special judge "a statement of facts" connecting the documents being sought with an ongoing investigation, he noted.

But some Republicans are unconvinced. The legislation does not spell out a targeted person's right to a "specific judicial review" of the "gag order" that is included in the records' search to ensure secrecy, Sen. John E. Sununu (N.H.) said yesterday. "There are a lot of Republicans and independents and Democrats who believe civil liberties should be protected as you extend the Patriot Act," he added.

Some Democrats have expressed fears that a vote against the Patriot Act extension may be used against them in next year's elections. They note that former senator Max Cleland (D-Ga.) was accused of being unpatriotic for voting against creation of the Homeland Security Department under guidelines opposed by labor unions. But Sununu said, "I don't believe this is a partisan issue" because so many Republicans oppose the Patriot Act legislation and dozens of Democrats support it.

The House-passed bill also includes millions of dollars to combat the manufacturing and use of methamphetamine, a drug that has hit rural communities especially hard. The law would limit consumers' purchases of cold medicines that include pseudoephedrine, a key ingredient of meth.

In Virginia's congressional delegation, all Republicans voted for the bill and all Democrats voted against it. In Maryland, those voting for the bill were Democrats Hoyer, Benjamin L. Cardin, C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger and Republican Wayne T. Gilchrest. Voting nay were Democrats Elijah E. Cummings, Chris Van Hollen and Albert R. Wynn and Republican Roscoe G. Bartlett.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 6:11 am

And what's meth production got to do with terrorism???

SOJOURNER · Post by **SOJOURNER** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 6:45 am

Accountable wrote: And what's meth production got to do with terrorism???
It's just a little attachment to the original bill that someone wants passed.

Why we cannot get this attachment thing stopped, I don't know. I'd work toward getting that change passed.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:52 am

Should we renew the Patriot Act?

No ! And I hope he gets impeached for spying on American citizens without going through proper channels. He single handedly has done more to chip away at the constitution than all of the presidents combined in the last 200 yrs.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:55 am

It's just a little attachment to the original bill that someone wants passed.

Isnt that special ? They have attached an Alaskan oil drilling bill to the defense budget because it couldnt get passed on its own. Is this blatant manipulation or what ? Politicians....what a nasty breed !

Azrayel · Post by **Azrayel** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 7:36 am

I think that we should use every weapon at our disposal. While we as americans are worried if we are being politicaly correct to everyone, these guys are trying to destroy us. While we are passing bills not to torture P.O.W's, these guys are killing our people and soldiers on web cams and showing them on the internet. I have not read the 300 page patriot act document, but I agree wih the main idea of the act. Nomad I agree with you fully on your outlook of Bush Jr. You also forgot about how he single handedly destroyed the U.S reputation.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:51 am

Azrayel wrote: I think that we should use every weapon at our disposal. While we as americans are worried if we are being politicaly correct to everyone, these guys are trying to destroy us. While we are passing bills not to torture P.O.W's, these guys are killing our people and soldiers on web cams and showing them on the internet. I have not read the 300 page patriot act document, but I agree wih the main idea of the act. Nomad I agree with you fully on your outlook of Bush Jr. You also forgot about how he single handedly destroyed the U.S reputation.Freedom is what we are about. It is our 'family fortune.' Without it, there may as well not be a USA.

No, we should not use every weapon at our disposal. The whatever enforcement agencies should not be allowed to look wherever they think something might be up. The next step is "well if you don't have anything to hide, why would you object to us looking?" Close & lock the doors (borders); check out whoever wants to come in. Fine. But once they're inside this country, you damn well better have good reason to investigate them, because you damn well better have good reason to investigate ME.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:52 am

Nomad wrote: Should we renew the Patriot Act?

No ! And I hope he gets impeached for spying on American citizens without going through proper channels. He single handedly has done more to chip away at the constitution than all of the presidents combined in the last 200 yrs.You might want to check that last statement. Lincoln and FDR would give him a run for his money.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 11:14 am

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

~Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the

governor, November 11, 1755

I think ol Ben Franklin was a wise man and this quote fits still today!

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 12:33 pm

While I think that the safety of the American people is very important (I am one, after all), I worry that the Patriot Act gives law enforcement just a little too much freedom to do what they will where they will.

Are we really to believe that there are so many terrorists on American soil that law enforcement agencies don't have time to get the proper legal documents to keep an eye on them? If this is the case, then I think we need to look and see if these are people who are citizens or people that have gotten into the country either illegally or by lying on visa applications.

In the Province of Ontario, in Canada, a "pit bull" law was passed this summer. (Bear with me - it does keep with the topic.) According to this new law, if someone reports a "dangerous" dog - with no definition of dangerous - then local law enforcement has the authority to enter a home with no warrants - using whatever force necessary - to investigate. Local law enforcement is not able to do this when looking for drug dealers, gang members or murder suspects.

Just another erosion of rights.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 1:00 pm

LilacDragon wrote:

In the Province of Ontario, in Canada, a "pit bull" law was passed this summer. (Bear with me - it does keep with the topic.) According to this new law, if someone reports a "dangerous" dog - with no definition of dangerous - then local law enforcement has the authority to enter a home with no warrants - using whatever force necessary - to investigate. Local law enforcement is not able to do this when looking for drug dealers, gang members or murder suspects.

Just another erosion of rights.I see your point. We have to keep in mind not only what the law says, but what the impact is. What other ways can an overzealous official use it?

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 1:05 pm

Did anyone see Condi Rice with Tim Russert this AM?

Any thoughts?

Azrayel · Post by **Azrayel** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:45 pm

I get it....as the world changes we stay the same.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 6:45 pm

Azrayel wrote: I get it....as the world changes we stay the same.I'm guessing this is in response to my Freedom post. Why should we change what right and best about the USA?? If we need to change anything it has to be border control.

You're not really okay with the police coming into your home without a warrant, are you?

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 7:26 pm

It seems to me that one of the reasons given for removing Hussein from power was the fact that men disappeared from their homes and were killed for real or imagined crimes against the ruling party. (Okay, well, not believing that Hussein was a good guy seemed to be a crime at the time.)

While people "apprehended" under the Patriot Act aren't killed, they are taken from their jobs and homes, not allowed representation, not given any reason and a myrid of other things that are considered basic rights here in this country.

Our soldiers are dying to give freedoms to others that some people aren't afforded in America? Somehow this seems wrong to me.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 7:28 pm

LilacDragon wrote: It seems to me that one of the reasons given for removing Hussein from power was the fact that men disappeared from their homes and were killed for real or imagined crimes against the ruling party. (Okay, well, not believing that Hussein was a good guy seemed to be a crime at the time.)

While people "apprehended" under the Patriot Act aren't killed, they are taken from their jobs and homes, not allowed representation, not given any reason and a myrid of other things that are considered basic rights here in this country.

Our soldiers are dying to give freedoms to others that some people aren't afforded in America? Somehow this seems wrong to me.Somehow.

Azrayel · Post by **Azrayel** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 5:03 am

Accountable wrote: I'm guessing this is in response to my Freedom post. Why should we change what right and best about the USA?? If we need to change anything it has to be border control.

You're not really okay with the police coming into your home without a warrant, are you?
We need to change border control could be a whole new topic by itself!!! Why should we change what is right with the USA? because it isn't safe anymore. We can't just go about our days blind to the world around us. In the civil war the British used to fight in a straight line because that was how wars were fought. When they got creamed cause we would hide in the woods and pick em off the rules of war changed. Let the police come into my house if they feel that I was a terrorist or talking to one....hell let them come in to fight the war on drugs too.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 5:27 am

Azrayel wrote: We need to change border control could be a whole new topic by itself!!! Why should we change what is right with the USA? because it isn't safe anymore. We can't just go about our days blind to the world around us. In the civil war the British used to fight in a straight line because that was how wars were fought. When they got creamed cause we would hide in the woods and pick em off the rules of war changed. Let the police come into my house if they feel that I was a terrorist or talking to one....hell let them come in to fight the war on drugs too.Obviously our military is doing far too good a job protecting your freedom, for you have become spoiled. You don't deserve freedom if you don't appreciate it. I don't know how to respond to you.

Azrayel · Post by **Azrayel** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:46 am

so how exactly am I the one that is spoiled? you are the one who is saying that you don't want to give up your privacy in this small and insignificant way. I mean, your email is already being looked at when you think it is going into your trash bin, and your call that are overseas are already monitored by the government whether it is the US or the country you are calling. The internet is a government domain so it is looked at, patriot act or not. I see a problem and if this is the quckest and fastest way for the government to react to situations that arise than I'm all for it. Do you think the government really cares about what you or I say on the phone or email to each other? If you have nothing to hide than this doesen't effect you or your way of life. The only people that suffer from this are those that are trying to hurt the US or are doing something illegal. I don't think I'm being spoiled since I am willing to give some to remain free.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:10 am

I was willing to give all so all may remain free. What you are doing is giving freedom so that you may remain. Big difference.

Azrayel · Post by **Azrayel** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:16 am

and as a civilian I'm willing to give what I can to help our soldiers do their job safer and better. I am also willing to give some to keep others I don't know alive and safe.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:46 am

Azrayel wrote: and as a civilian I'm willing to give what I can to help our soldiers do their job safer and better. I am also willing to give some to keep others I don't know alive and safe.But there's no point to any of that if we give up freedom.

Somebody want to pick up my slack here, please? I'm not getting across.

Azrayel · Post by **Azrayel** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 4:48 pm

but you are getting across. I have an opinion and so do you. I respect your point of view as well as any others in here. There is no reason to have anyone pick up your "slack."

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 5:10 pm

Politicians are like teenagers - give them an inch and they will take a mile. The minute you give consent to have your "stuff" rifled through without your knowledge - the more of your "stuff" they want to rifle through.

Since I avoid politics like the plague, I will use Breed Specific Legislation again to explain. In many communtities, pit bulls have been banned in an effort to stop the "dog bite epidemic". Once pit bulls are banned and the bite statistics fail to drop - another breed is looked at as the culprit. Usually the rottweiler. When that fails to work, then the doberman is next, followed by mastiffs, akitas, and so on.

If you give the government permission (by not speaking out against it) to go through your e-mails, well, then they move onto your phone. Then your mail. Next thing you know, the police are knocking (maybe) at your door and rummaging through your house. And they may not have to have a warrant in their hand to do so.

Child molesters, murders, and drug dealers have more rights then suspected terrorists. They have to be read their rights when they are arrested and have the right to council. They have the right to go before a judge and post bail. They have a right to a speedy trial. Evidence must be gathered BEFORE any of this happens and most DA's won't arrest unless they feel they have an airtight case.

My understanding of the Patriot Act takes all of those rights away from a "suspected" terrorist. It is my understanding that they are not "arrested" but "detained" and since they aren't under arrest, they can languish in a holding cell somewhere until the powers that be come up with enough evidence to charge them or decide they aren't a threat and let them go. No lawyer, no speedy anything. Oh, and I doubt that any apology is offered if the person is found to not be a threat.

Sorry, but that is not the way things are supposed to be done in the United States of America. Yes, I worry about my safety and the safety of my children. But I am not willing to give up my freedoms to protect myself or my children. Heck, if that was the case - I would move to Ontario!

Azrayel · Post by **Azrayel** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 5:17 pm

thanks Lilac for your animal comparison. As an loving Pitbull owner I can see that point much clearer. the part of the Patriot act that makes sense to me is the speed at which they can respond to a specific threat. do I think that the patriot act should be a perment tool used by the government? NO!!! but until a better solution is found, I think it is the best we have.

StupidCowboyTricks · Post by **StupidCowboyTricks** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 5:17 pm

mmmmmmmmmmmmm

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:56 pm

Thanks, Lilac. That was a great analogy.

Azrayel, I think in this case there is most definitely a right and wrong. While you absolutely have a right to your opinion, I see a very real danger in allowing the gov't to do the things you say you're comfortable with.

When I was volunteering with the Red Cross (there's a thread on it), the conditions were less than ideal, to say the least. While everybody looked and dressed similarly, because it was all from Salvation Army, I found out there were entrepeneurs, home owners, drug addicts, and ex-cons all sleeping side-by-side and helping each other. The police and security were there, but everyone spoke to each other with respect and smiles.

Suddenly one day, a different agency took over security. They set up an entry point where everyone had to submit to searches and metal detectors to enter, even if they only stepped outside for a smoke. Rumors abounded about them catching some evacuees with firearms & other contraband. I actively tried to find out the truth. The best I could find out was that the new management decided to tighten security, full stop.

My point: if police enter a home, the neighbors automatically assume they have good reason. Therefore, the family is marked, convicted without trial. Whether there was valid reason for the entry is irrelavent. Imagine being that family and the humiliation they would endure.

StupidCowboyTricks · Post by **StupidCowboyTricks** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 7:40 pm

ffffffffffffffffffffffhhhh

ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:03 pm

My point: if police enter a home, the neighbors automatically assume they have good reason. Therefore, the family is marked, convicted without trial. Whether there was valid reason for the entry is irrelavent. Imagine being that family and the humiliation they would endure.

In keeping with the analogy - much like your dog is a lock-jaw killing machine just because it is a pit bull.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:30 pm

Well guys, renewal of the Patriot Act would determine M/C's as terrorist groups. That means me and my husband. Anyone care to call me a terrorist?

Azrayel · Post by **Azrayel** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:16 am

maybe I'm wrong. but the way the president *sigh* explained the patriot act said that it was to be used against known terrorist groups, and not to be used against americans. I have to do a bit more research on this, but I am not gonna read that 300 page mumbo jumbo document the president wrote.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:18 am

BabyRider wrote: Well guys, renewal of the Patriot Act would determine M/C's as terrorist groups. That means me and my husband. Anyone care to call me a terrorist?Well, I would be scared to go head-to-head with you, but terrified?

Azrayel · Post by **Azrayel** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 6:36 am

but we did use a satellite to spy on them....which is unusual to use on domestic soil.

Report: Satellite Used After Ok. Bombing

OKLAHOMA CITY, Dec. 15, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(AP) In the days after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the U.S. government used a spy satellite to gather intelligence on a white separatist compound in Oklahoma, according to a published report.

The McCurtain Daily Gazette reported Wednesday that it had obtained a Secret Service log indicating that on May 2, 1995 _ two weeks after the April 19 bombing _ the FBI was trying to locate suspects for questioning. They were thought to be in Elohim City, a compound near the town of Muldrow.

"Satellite assets have been tasked to provide intelligence concerning the compound," the document says.

Shown a copy, Secret Service spokesman Jonathan Cherry told The Associated Press he could not confirm it was a Secret Service document and declined further comment.

There was no indication in the document of what information the satellite might have gathered, or what the spacecraft was capable of doing.

U.S. officials typically rely on photo-reconnaissance satellites to gather intelligence from space on hostile governments and foreign terrorists. It would be unusual to use such a satellite domestically.

Timothy McVeigh was executed in 2001 for the bombing, which killed 168 people. Terry Nichols, is serving a life sentence.

Theories have persisted that a group of white supremacist bank robbers with ties to Elohim City may have played a role in the bombing. But prosecutors have rejected such theories.

MMV The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:47 am

Azrayel wrote: maybe I'm wrong. but the way the president *sigh* explained the patriot act said that it was to be used against known terrorist groups, and not to be used against americans. I have to do a bit more research on this, but I am not gonna read that 300 page mumbo jumbo document the president wrote.
Sure, don't get confused with the facts or anything.

The way it is written, organized motorcycle clubs, like the one my husband belongs to, will be considered terrorist organizations. American or not. The Patriot Act is the beginning of the worst erosion of our rights as Americans ever perpetuated on us. Anyone who isn't opposed to it, doesn't understand it's implications.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:21 pm

BabyRider wrote: American or not. The Patriot Act is the beginning of the worst erosion of our rights as Americans ever perpetuated on us. Anyone who isn't opposed to it, doesn't understand it's implications.

And you say that I put your feelings into words...you just did the same for me.

The "Patriot Act" is neither patriotic nor an act. It should be renamed, "The Fascist - Domestic-Spying Freedom-Killing, Justice-Denying, Liberty-Squelching Document!"

:mad:

czar · Post by **czar** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:48 pm

Has there been any false accusations in the US using the Patriot Act? We need some kind of protection until they revamp this one. Lets just say that there's no Patriot Act and they know of a place that hold a list of sleeper groups in the US. While we are trying to get the right to go into this place they are burning all the documents that have the information that we need. When we get in there everything is destroyed and we have nothing because we tried to do it the way the people wanted it done. A couple of days later, bombs go off killing thousands of people. Would we feel good that this could of been stopped if the Patriot Act was in place. We do need something in place, it may not be this but we do need something.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:06 pm

czar wrote: Has there been any false accusations in the US using the Patriot Act? We need some kind of protection until they revamp this one. Lets just say that there's no Patriot Act and they know of a place that hold a list of sleeper groups in the US. While we are trying to get the right to go into this place they are burning all the documents that have the information that we need. When we get in there everything is destroyed and we have nothing because we tried to do it the way the people wanted it done. A couple of days later, bombs go off killing thousands of people. Would we feel good that this could of been stopped if the Patriot Act was in place. We do need something in place, it may not be this but we do need something.The danger isn't necessarily false accusations. Rather, it's a badly written law that allows the abuse of citizens' rights without due process. In short, it's unconstitutional, imo.

czar · Post by **czar** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:09 pm

If it's not the false accusations then why should we worry about criminals losing some of their rights. I feel they get more than they should now. By the time it takes to process them and we get the info we need it's to late. People worry to much about the what if and not enough about what could be. You may have to step on some toes to get what you need but if it's better than waiting in line and getting walked over. If we don't take the initiative they will and you can't say they won't.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:11 pm

czar wrote: If it's not the false accusations then why should we worry about criminals losing some of their rights. I feel they get more than they should now. By the time it takes to process them and we get the info we need it's to late. People worry to much about the what if and not enough about what could be. You may have to step on some toes to get what you need but if it's better than waiting in line and getting walked over. If we don't take the initiative they will and you can't say they won't.Read the second sentence of my post and respond to that.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:24 pm

czar wrote: If it's not the false accusations then why should we worry about criminals losing some of their rights.

Better to let a hundred criminals go free than to imprison one innocent man, czar. Especially if that innocent man was you, eh?:rolleyes:

People worry to much about the what if and not enough about what could be.

lol. Those are the same things. They both reference the future.

So here's how it goes.

1. First, they listen in on your phone calls, and check your library records. Did you read anything offensive lately? 1984? Mein Kampf?"

2. Then they check your e-mail.

3. Then it's, "We're searching every house on this block today sir, we think there might be some terrorists around here."

4. Finally it's, "I'm sorry sir, you don't have permission to travel. We are on alert."

Now you are no longer free. It's that quick and easy for them.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:38 pm

As recent as last week, the hurricane evacuees that are still warehoused here have a card they have to swipe through the computer to enter or leave the building. They also have to pass through metal detectors and subject their bags to search. Any personal belongings they put in storage (which is in the same building) are off limits until such time that they leave permanently. It is easy to imagine them having periodic sweeps through everyone's stuff on the rumor that one person might have smuggled a weapon or drugs inside.

Not very hard to imagine the same controls expanding to the entire nation, either.

czar · Post by **czar** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:09 pm

Jives wrote: Better to let a hundred criminals go free than to imprison one innocent man, czar. Especially if that innocent man was you, eh?:rolleyes:

I would rather be one of the falsely accused and capture hundreds of terrorists then just let them all walk. Would you rather have the US turn into an Iraq or have someone looking over you shoulder.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:11 pm

czar wrote: I would rather be one of the falsely accused and capture hundreds of terrorists then just let them all walk. Would you rather have the US turn into an Iraq or have someone looking over you shoulder.Darn it!! :-5 I can't remember that term. We use it in debate and philosophy. The choices are not exclusive.

AAAAaaaarrgggh! What's the term?!?

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:16 pm

czar wrote: I would rather be one of the falsely accused and capture hundreds of terrorists then just let them all walk.

You say that now, but as you sit in your jail cell, listening to your lover, Bubba, snoring and waiting for dawn to bring the Preacher and the electric chair....you'd sing a different tune.

Would you rather have the US turn into an Iraq or have someone looking over you shoulder.

Neither. It's not an "either/or" proposition. We can retain our freedom and rights, while still staying alert and protecting ourselves.

If we all give away our rights and give in to fear as you suggest... The terrorists will have won without ever having fired a shot!

Or to put it as Benjamin Franklin as aptly said:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

czar · Post by **czar** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:17 pm

Accountable wrote: Read the second sentence of my post and respond to that.

Are you talking about this.

The Patriot Act, approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, made it easier for the FBI to conduct secret searches, monitor telephone calls and e-mails, and obtain bank records and other personal documents in connection with terrorism investigations.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:21 pm

No, the second sentence in my post.

Accountable wrote: The danger isn't necessarily false accusations. Rather, it's a badly written law that allows the abuse of citizens' rights without due process. In short, it's unconstitutional, imo.

czar · Post by **czar** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:35 pm

Jives wrote: You say that now, but as you sit in your jail cell, listening to your lover, Bubba, snoring and waiting for dawn to bring the Preacher and the electric chair....you'd sing a different tune.

Neither. It's not an "either/or" proposition. We can retain our freedom and rights, while still staying alert and protecting ourselves.

If we all give away our rights and give in to fear as you suggest... The terrorists will have won without ever having fired a shot!

Or to put it as Benjamin Franklin as aptly said:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I would be sitting jail and there would be no Bubba because I would be in a different prison. Then I would have people like you tring to get me out and I would be in the public eye. I would be found innocent over time and let out. It's funny how you take things to such extremes and none of this has happened yet.

It's not giving into fear, it's taking action. Have you lost any freedom since this has been in place, I don't think so.

czar · Post by **czar** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:42 pm

Originally Posted by Accountable

The danger isn't necessarily false accusations. Rather, it's a badly written law that allows the abuse of citizens' rights without due process. In short, it's unconstitutional, imo.

If you are a terrorist, you have no constitutional rights.