The First Openly Godless Member of Congress

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It isn't curbing anyones freedoms except for the terrorists. Why do you want to defend their rights?

I will defend the terrorists' rights as much as I will defend your rights, Gary.

As long as a *suspected* terrorist (note the word "suspected") is not convicted in

a court of law, he has the same rights as you and I. It's a slippery slope otherwise.

The Patriot Act allows the authorities to collect all sorts of information about anyone

who is only "suspected" of being a "terrorist." It permits entry into homes and offices

without warrants, probable cause, notice, and without you having to be there.

It authorizes the freezing of your bank accounts and the total demise of financial

privacy.

Yet the biggest problem I have with the Patriot Act is that it violates due process

guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Due process requires that a person be charged

with a crime and tried quickly. Any relinquishment of habeas corpus violates due

process. The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is part of the same process.

This issue also comes into play when a person is designated "enemy combatant"

as a step in removing their constitutional rights. One cannot remove protections

of the law in an extra-judicial process; this in itself is illegal and unconstitutional.

Amen, brother!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It isn't curbing anyones freedoms except for the terrorists. Why do you want to defend their rights?

I will defend the terrorists' rights as much as I will defend your rights, Gary.

As long as a *suspected* terrorist (note the word "suspected") is not convicted in

a court of law, he has the same rights as you and I. It's a slippery slope otherwise.

The Patriot Act allows the authorities to collect all sorts of information about anyone

who is only "suspected" of being a "terrorist." It permits entry into homes and offices

without warrants, probable cause, notice, and without you having to be there.

It authorizes the freezing of your bank accounts and the total demise of financial

privacy.

Yet the biggest problem I have with the Patriot Act is that it violates due process

guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Due process requires that a person be charged

with a crime and tried quickly. Any relinquishment of habeas corpus violates due

process. The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is part of the same process.

This issue also comes into play when a person is designated "enemy combatant"

as a step in removing their constitutional rights. One cannot remove protections

of the law in an extra-judicial process; this in itself is illegal and unconstitutional.

Moreover, due process is a fundamental part of the democratic system. Lose that and you're on the first step back towards totalitarianism. It's not Bush we need to worry about abusing these new powers - it's the people who come after him, because laws like the Patriot Act seriously undermine the founding values of the country. Mess with those and it becomes easier to repeal the constitution and bill of rights in its entirety. There is a historical precedent for this - pre-Hitler Germany...

[Caladan 19]

Seriously. If you think it's okay because Bush has the Magic Underpants of Terrorist Detection, and will only arrest the bad guys... I'm sure you're just fine then with President Hillary Clinton having the same powers, right?

Presidential power is like toothpaste. Once expanded, it doesn't go back in the tube.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Seriously. If you think it's okay because Bush has the Magic Underpants of Terrorist Detection, and will only arrest the bad guys... I'm sure you're just fine then with President Hillary Clinton having the same powers, right?

Presidential power is like toothpaste. Once expanded, it doesn't go back in the tube.

Especially when "big government = bad" comes into the picture.

[FatnStupidBitch 0]

Hillary will use the toothpaste for good, Bush uses it for evil. I am glad Bush let the paste out, now Hillary has more to work with. That means she can do more good

[GaryC 7]

It isn't curbing anyones freedoms except for the terrorists. Why do you want to defend their rights?

I will defend the terrorists' rights as much as I will defend your rights, Gary.

As long as a *suspected* terrorist (note the word "suspected") is not convicted in

a court of law, he has the same rights as you and I. It's a slippery slope otherwise.

The Patriot Act allows the authorities to collect all sorts of information about anyone

who is only "suspected" of being a "terrorist." It permits entry into homes and offices

without warrants, probable cause, notice, and without you having to be there.

It authorizes the freezing of your bank accounts and the total demise of financial

privacy.

Yet the biggest problem I have with the Patriot Act is that it violates due process

guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Due process requires that a person be charged

with a crime and tried quickly. Any relinquishment of habeas corpus violates due

process. The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is part of the same process.

This issue also comes into play when a person is designated "enemy combatant"

as a step in removing their constitutional rights. One cannot remove protections

of the law in an extra-judicial process; this in itself is illegal and unconstitutional.

Do you really think this is a new thing? Every time we are at war or are threatened with war much worse things than the Patriot act happen. At least this time it's with the blessing of congress. (remember that congress passed this law and it hasn't been repealed yet) Our history is full of hard measures taken in the time of crises. Abraham Lincoln suspended habius corpus during the civil war. He even threatened to arrest and deport to the south any member of congress that spoke against him publicly. The civil war itself was unconstitutional. The constitution says the states have the right to leave the union but Lincoln started a war to prevent that. When WW2 broke out FDR put all people of Japanese decent in camps to prevent terrorism. All mail leaving the country was censored. Kennedy used the FBI as his own private eye. He spied on anyone he thought may be a communist sympathizer. Hoover was uncontrolled when it came to people the government thought was "un-american". Johnson spied on anyone that was anti-war.

You make Bush and the Republicans sound like some power hungry mad men intent on destroying our constitution. In fact his reaction is measured and tame by the standards set by the presidents that came before him. These measures are necessary for our protection. When the crisis has passed things will go back to normal just as they always have. You need to put aside your distrust and resentment of our current administration and think of the common good. We are fighting an enemy unlike any before. There is no nation state to focus our actions on. They are a diverse and intractable enemy that has a stated goal of hurting us in any way they can. They will use our own freedoms against us. They will attempt to divide us. I am reminded of a quote by Bin Ladin: "We love death, America loves life. That is the difference between us". We have to stand together if we have any hope of winning. This is my sure and unshakable belief.

Ok, I will get off my soap box now. I am sure there will be many that think I am paranoid. But history will look back on this time and judge us by how we work together. I only hope the judgment is a favorable one.

Edited March 27, 2007 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Do you really think this is a new thing? Every time we are at war or are threatened with war much worse things than the Patriot act happen. At least this time it's with the blessing of congress. (remember that congress passed this law and it hasn't been repealed yet) Our history is full of hard measures taken in the time of crises. Abraham Lincoln suspended habius corpus during the civil war. He even threatened to arrest and deport to the south any member of congress that spoke against him publicly. The civil war itself was unconstitutional. The constitution says the states have the right to leave the union but Lincoln started a war to prevent that. When WW2 broke out FDR put all people of Japanese decent in camps to prevent terrorism. All mail leaving the country was censored. Kennedy used the FBI as his own private eye. He spied on anyone he thought may be a communist sympathizer. Hoover was uncontrolled when it came to people the government thought was "un-american". Johnson spied on anyone that was anti-war.

I think history shows those examples were an abuse of power too... But with regards to the civil war, that was a greater threat to the nation's survival than terrorism.

[GaryC 7]

Do you really think this is a new thing? Every time we are at war or are threatened with war much worse things than the Patriot act happen. At least this time it's with the blessing of congress. (remember that congress passed this law and it hasn't been repealed yet) Our history is full of hard measures taken in the time of crises. Abraham Lincoln suspended habius corpus during the civil war. He even threatened to arrest and deport to the south any member of congress that spoke against him publicly. The civil war itself was unconstitutional. The constitution says the states have the right to leave the union but Lincoln started a war to prevent that. When WW2 broke out FDR put all people of Japanese decent in camps to prevent terrorism. All mail leaving the country was censored. Kennedy used the FBI as his own private eye. He spied on anyone he thought may be a communist sympathizer. Hoover was uncontrolled when it came to people the government thought was "un-american". Johnson spied on anyone that was anti-war.

I think history shows those examples were an abuse of power too... But with regards to the civil war, that was a greater threat to the nation's survival than terrorism.

I feel that the current threat posed by terrorism in a nuclear world is just as big a danger to our country as we have ever faced.

The point being that this is nothing new and in reality mild compared to what has happened in the past. In your words:

Moreover, due process is a fundamental part of the democratic system. Lose that and you're on the first step back towards totalitarianism. It's not Bush we need to worry about abusing these new powers - it's the people who come after him, because laws like the Patriot Act seriously undermine the founding values of the country. Mess with those and it becomes easier to repeal the constitution and bill of rights in its entirety. There is a historical precedent for this - pre-Hitler Germany...

You imply that this will lead us to a fascist state ala Hitler when history shows that we survive it intact every time. The big difference this time is that Bush asked for and was given a law to do these things. He didn't try to "seize" power illegally but did his best to protect the country and act within the law.

I find it interesting that the same people that voted for the Patriot Act are the same ones that are slamming Bush for it. And yet, now that they are in power and can repeal the act haven't done so. This is just another attempt to politicize our defense and use it for their own political ends. If the Patriot Act were so dangerous why did they allow it to be renewed? Also, you and others here seem to think that the act is a one way street. I have already pointed out that in times of danger extraordinary measures have been taken but when the danger is over our liberties emerge intact. In addition, the Patriot Act has a sunset date. When that time comes and we are no longer in danger it will not be renewed and everything will go back to normal.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I feel that the current threat posed by terrorism in a nuclear world is just as big a danger to our country as we have ever faced.

The danger has always been there - its nothing new. Moreover, the threat of terrorist attack, while obviously threatening to life and property does not directly threaten the existence of the nation.

The point being that this is nothing new and in reality mild compared to what has happened in the past.

Even if those decisions (e.g. imprisoning Americans of Japanese descent in WW2) were wrong before?

You imply that this will lead us to a fascist state ala Hitler when history shows that we survive it intact every time. The big difference this time is that Bush asked for and was given a law to do these things. He didn't try to "seize" power illegally but did his best to protect the country and act within the law. I find it interesting that the same people that voted for the Patriot Act are the same ones that are slamming Bush for it. And yet, now that they are in power and can repeal the act haven't done so. This is just another attempt to politicize our defense and use it for their own political ends. If the Patriot Act were so dangerous why did they allow it to be renewed? Also, you and others here seem to think that the act is a one way street. I have already pointed out that in times of danger extraordinary measures have been taken but when the danger is over our liberties emerge intact. In addition, the Patriot Act has a sunset date. When that time comes and we are no longer in danger it will not be renewed and everything will go back to normal.

I've mentioned this before - but the German national constitution (pre-ww2) is generally regarded as one of the most democratic pieces of constitutional legislation in the 20th century - superior in some ways to the US constitution. Yet all it took was a few years, a gang of thugs and a couple of pieces of legislation which undermined and ultimately tore up that constitution. Obviously there were more issues relating to what happened in Germany, but the key point is that their valued constitution was destroyed by 2 pieces of legislation which first undermined the civil rights of the citizens and secondly increased the power of the executive branch of government by removing the system of checks and balances.

What I'm saying is - from a democratic point of view it is never a good thing to mess with the founding principles of the country, and it weakens the country long-term to do so and raises the possibility that worse abuses will be made in future. That said, I agree that its very unlikely (unless things seriously deteriorate) that we'll see the US devolve into totalitarianism anytime soon, but personally speaking that's not a gamble I would wish to make in the first place. Devotees of Leo Strauss will no doubt disagree.

[GaryC 7]

I feel that the current threat posed by terrorism in a nuclear world is just as big a danger to our country as we have ever faced.

The danger has always been there - its nothing new. Moreover, the threat of terrorist attack, while obviously threatening to life and property does not directly threaten the existence of the nation.

So you are willing to have a nuclear 9/11 because of your reluctance to having the tools at hand to stop it?

The point being that this is nothing new and in reality mild compared to what has happened in the past.

Even if those decisions (e.g. imprisoning Americans of Japanese descent in WW2) were wrong before?

I didn't say what was done in the past was right, I was illustrating a point that worse things have happend and we emerged with all our rights intact.

You imply that this will lead us to a fascist state ala Hitler when history shows that we survive it intact every time. The big difference this time is that Bush asked for and was given a law to do these things. He didn't try to "seize" power illegally but did his best to protect the country and act within the law. I find it interesting that the same people that voted for the Patriot Act are the same ones that are slamming Bush for it. And yet, now that they are in power and can repeal the act haven't done so. This is just another attempt to politicize our defense and use it for their own political ends. If the Patriot Act were so dangerous why did they allow it to be renewed? Also, you and others here seem to think that the act is a one way street. I have already pointed out that in times of danger extraordinary measures have been taken but when the danger is over our liberties emerge intact. In addition, the Patriot Act has a sunset date. When that time comes and we are no longer in danger it will not be renewed and everything will go back to normal.

I've mentioned this before - but the German national constitution (pre-ww2) is generally regarded as one of the most democratic pieces of constitutional legislation in the 20th century - superior in some ways to the US constitution. Yet all it took was a few years, a gang of thugs and a couple of pieces of legislation which undermined and ultimately tore up that constitution. Obviously there were more issues relating to what happened in Germany, but the key point is that their valued constitution was destroyed by 2 pieces of legislation which first undermined the civil rights of the citizens and secondly increased the power of the executive branch of government by removing the system of checks and balances.

What I'm saying is - from a democratic point of view it is never a good thing to mess with the founding principles of the country, and it weakens the country long-term to do so and raises the possibility that worse abuses will be made in future. That said, I agree that its very unlikely (unless things seriously deteriorate) that we'll see the US devolve into totalitarianism anytime soon, but personally speaking that's not a gamble I would wish to make in the first place. Devotees of Leo Strauss will no doubt disagree.

The big difference here is it takes a constitutional amendment to permanently change our basic rights.

[beameup 0]

Do you really think this is a new thing? Every time we are at war or are threatened with war much worse things than the Patriot act happen. At least this time it's with the blessing of congress. (remember that congress passed this law and it hasn't been repealed yet) Our history is full of hard measures taken in the time of crises. Abraham Lincoln suspended habius corpus during the civil war. He even threatened to arrest and deport to the south any member of congress that spoke against him publicly. The civil war itself was unconstitutional. The constitution says the states have the right to leave the union but Lincoln started a war to prevent that. When WW2 broke out FDR put all people of Japanese decent in camps to prevent terrorism. All mail leaving the country was censored. Kennedy used the FBI as his own private eye. He spied on anyone he thought may be a communist sympathizer. Hoover was uncontrolled when it came to people the government thought was "un-american". Johnson spied on anyone that was anti-war.

You make Bush and the Republicans sound like some power hungry mad men intent on destroying our constitution. In fact his reaction is measured and tame by the standards set by the presidents that came before him. These measures are necessary for our protection. When the crisis has passed things will go back to normal just as they always have. You need to put aside your distrust and resentment of our current administration and think of the common good. We are fighting an enemy unlike any before. There is no nation state to focus our actions on. They are a diverse and intractable enemy that has a stated goal of hurting us in any way they can. They will use our own freedoms against us. They will attempt to divide us. I am reminded of a quote by Bin Ladin: "We love death, America loves life. That is the difference between us". We have to stand together if we have any hope of winning. This is my sure and unshakable belief.

Ok, I will get off my soap box now. I am sure there will be many that think I am paranoid. But history will look back on this time and judge us by how we work together. I only hope the judgment is a favorable one.

Amen!

Couldn't have said it better.

The "problem" is that this war came along during a Republican Administration. The only "ammo" the Democrats have is to be "anti-war" protesters. Well I can tell you that a lot of "anti-war" protesters were outside the Democratic Convention in Chicago when warmonger Lyndon Johnson was running for re-election - how short the memory of some. And I have personally visited the WWII concentration camps in California for Japanese civilians.

This war is unlike any other that we have faced because it has "religious" elements and America stands for "freedom of religion" which creates and enigma. The best summary that I have read on how to win this war was from the former Spanish Prime Minister. At least he has not forgotten that Spain once was part of the Islamic Caliphite which ruled the entire Mediterranean. Of course he was voted out of office in favor of appeasement toward Militant Islamists.

When Osama bin Laden issued his famous fatwah he referred to the "80 years of SHAME" placed on the Muslim World - he is referring to the breakup of the Islamic Caliphite - the Ottoman Empire - by Western Nations after WWI. Don't think for a minute that Radical Islam has a short memory like some here.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So you are willing to have a nuclear 9/11 because of your reluctance to having the tools at hand to stop it?

Given the issues with port and border security if someone wants to do something like that - they will find a way. There's little justification that sweeping tapping phone calls, internet records and warrantless searches will do anything to stop that when basic security issues remain unaddressed.

I didn't say what was done in the past was right, I was illustrating a point that worse things have happend and we emerged with all our rights intact.

Sure - but risking everything on the assumption that it will probably be ok, seems naive at best.

The big difference here is it takes a constitutional amendment to permanently change our basic rights.

In the example of Germany, their constitutional safeguards were overruled by Article 48 (which was a National Emergency bill that was created by the previous government). Again, all it takes is some unscrupulous people in office, and those 'protections' prove to be very flimsy indeed.

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

I feel that the current threat posed by terrorism in a nuclear world is just as big a danger to our country as we have ever faced.

The danger has always been there - its nothing new. Moreover, the threat of terrorist attack, while obviously threatening to life and property does not directly threaten the existence of the nation.

yes, it's always been there, but such a scenario is more possible now than it was 20 years ago due to the collapse of the ussr.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

yes, it's always been there, but such a scenario is more possible now than it was 20 years ago due to the collapse of the ussr.

How will the nation be destroyed by terrorism?

[GaryC 7]

So you are willing to have a nuclear 9/11 because of your reluctance to having the tools at hand to stop it?

Given the issues with port and border security if someone wants to do something like that - they will find a way. There's little justification that sweeping tapping phone calls, internet records and warrantless searches will do anything to stop that when basic security issues remain unaddressed.

So then we should just sit back and do nothing? You want to just hope that they don't get a nuke into NYC next time? All these measures are designed to see it coming so we can prevent it. No matter how tight we secure our borders, in a world of suitcase nukes we could never hope to stop them with border security alone. We need intelligence assets to find the people that want to do this.

I didn't say what was done in the past was right, I was illustrating a point that worse things have happend and we emerged with all our rights intact.

Sure - but risking everything on the assumption that it will probably be ok, seems naive at best.

How naive is it to do nothing and hoping everything will be ok?

The big difference here is it takes a constitutional amendment to permanently change our basic rights.

In the example of Germany, their constitutional safeguards were overruled by Article 48 (which was a National Emergency bill that was created by the previous government). Again, all it takes is some unscrupulous people in office, and those 'protections' prove to be very flimsy indeed.

Our constitutional safeguards cannot be overrules by any law. That is what our Supreme Court is for. That was a flaw in their constitution.