Protection or invasion of privacy? (Patriot Act) | Chicago Sun-Times

[Ediacara]

Protection or invasion of privacy?

February 2, 2004

BY ANDREW HERRMANN Staff Reporter

In the weeks following the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, Congress passed a sweeping bill, dubbed the Patriot Act, by overwhelming margins: Only one nay vote was recorded in the Senate, and it earned an 83 percent approval rate in the House.

In signing the bill, which broadened police surveillance and detention powers, President Bush noted the "overwhelming, overwhelming agreement in Congress'' and praised "the spirit of bipartisanship."

Today, no such unity exists on the act, not between the political parties and not even within the GOP.

More at the Chicago Sun-Times

[ixion]

1. the unPATRIOTic Act is unconstitutional.

and that's all there is to it, IMO.

[einniv]

3. I wish more thought like you.

I hate hearing people frame the debate in terms of whether or not there is privacy being violated and whether the privacy violations are "worth" it.
It is rather simple. We have a Constitution and it includes a Bill of Rights. This law basically does away with some of those Bill of Rights ammendments.
Now, someone can argue until they are blue in the face that those ammendments need removed, modified , whatever.... But! until they are removed , modified , whatever they are the law and no one, not any administration for any reason has the authority ot "suspend" them. It is unamerican thinking at its worst.
The facts are , under that law, the USA basically given itself a Soviet Union/Stalin stlye court system where the executive branch can suspend normal justice procedures for anyone and everyone they deem "enemy of the state" (including American citizens).

[David Zephyr]

5. Not According to John Kerry, John Edwards and Joe Lieberman.

John Kerry, John Edwards and Joe Lieberman not only voted for the "Patriot Act", but have never stated that they felt the legislation was "unconstitutional" and worse, each has said at different times that there are 'good things' about the Patriot Act.

It is no comfort to hear Democrats who voted for the Patriot Act saying that they support "sunset" clauses. While the Patriot Act is "sunsetting" there are people languishing unconstitutionally within American jail who are not even able to contact their families or a lawyer.

Al Gore boldly called for the complete repeal of the Patriot Act.

Why haven't these three Democrats who want to be President of the United States called for the repeal of the Patriot? Why do they still, as I write this, ignore those that are being held unconstitutionally by John Ashcroft?

[PaDUer]

8. Then, don't vote for

any of the above who think the Patriot Act is ok.

[einniv]

2. One has to keep in mind what was going on at the time.

With the Anthrax attacks the Congress was shut down. The Dem congresspeople were the ones beign attacked. Very few even had a chance to read the act very closely (I know lame excuse I agree).
I just say this to point out that Bush's "overwhelming agreement" statement is not entirly accurate. Overwhelming fear and confusion is closer to the truth.

[DuctapeFatwa]

4. If the congress is too scared and confused to read laws before passing

them, if they are in such overwhelming disagreement with the constitution that they are unable to perform their duty to protect it, and the people, from rogue seizure of powers, in violation of that constitution, by an executive branch hostile to both it and them, they should repair forthwith to a secure undisclosed location and surrentder their positions to people who are less afraid and confused.

And if the people who elected them are so scared and confused that they not only do not recall them immediately for malfeasance, but demand immediate and open elections to replace the criminal who has been appointed by the supreme court, which has not happened, then the only reasonable conclusion is that stolen election, 9-11 events, Patriot Act, and whatever follows, are in fact the will of that 25% top income tier who votes.

This is not the first elite who has through ignorance, malice, or both, painted themselves into an uncomfortable corner, nor the first candle to burn at both ends...

[David Zephyr]

6. "Fear" and "Confusion" Is No Excuse At All.

Further, none of the three mentioned in my post have even suggested that they acted out of "fear" or "confusion". And none of the three have even hinted that Americans should take into consideration "what was going on at the time."

Lousy excuses that even Kerry, Edwards and Lieberman haven't made.

Leadership is about leading without fear of terrorists and, worse, fear of public opinion.

This issue will not go away.

[indepat]

7. It will never, never go away