Patriot Act: Necessary Tool or "Thin Edge"?

[lochinvar]

This thread, like so many others, is sparked by a "thread drift" in the Crusade vs. Jihad thread.

Question: Is the Patriot Act a necessary tool to fight terrorism? Or is it the "thin edge of the wedge" that will lead to the abbrogation of the Bill of Rights?

Some will argue that we need to take drastic measures to ensure that there will never be another 9/11. Others will side with Ben Franklin, who said that those who would surrender their freedom for security deserve neither.

Comments?

[scrapinpeg]

Legislation cannot interfere with constitutional rights.

In the event that there are constitutional violations, the courts are there to declare such provisions unconstitutional.

The courts are very good at doing this.

I seriously doubt that the American people and the courts would stand for any abrogation of their rights.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

{snip}
Question: Is the Patriot Act a necessary tool to fight terrorism? Or is it the "thin edge of the wedge" that will lead to the abbrogation of the Bill of Rights?
{snip}

To me, it's neither.

It's a collection of things, some of which are useful, some not. Most of them are good, IMHO, some are a bit too open-ended, and a few give too much lattitude to the goverment for my taste.

But ultimately, it's not that big of a difference and isn't a panacea, nor is the sky falling.

Of course--I think that the name is an abomination. I hate when people pick an acronym, and then work backword to find words to fit. USA PATRIOT ACT="Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism."

--Philistine

[L.O.A.S.]

Originally Posted by Philistine

Of course--I think that the name is an abomination. I hate when people pick an acronym, and then work backword to find words to fit. USA PATRIOT ACT="Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism."

--Philistine

Creative. Anyone know the acronym for MARINE?

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

Creative. Anyone know the acronym for MARINE?

Uh...Jarhead?

[Epee_Pox]

Muscles
Are
Required,
Intelligence
Not
Essential,
SIR!

or

My
A$$
Riding
In
Navy
Equipment

Hooray for thread hijacking! Pick another!

[mrbiggs]

Self-contained underwater breathing apparatus. Not worked backwards, but they found a cool name.

I think the Patriot Act is a flagrant violation of the Constitution that takes advantage of our fears after 9/11. I don't think that the Bush administration is trying to gain power over us (through this act, at least), but I think that it's a political tool to make Bush look tough on terrorism.

[L.O.A.S.]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

Muscles
Are
Required,
Intelligence
Not
Essential,
SIR!

or

My
A$$
Riding
In
Navy
Equipment

Hooray for thread hijacking! Pick another!

Correct on both. They are also known as BB's or BC's. Any guesses?

[Soldier]

I've also heard ARMY = Ain't Real Marines Yet

And what's so wrong with backwards acronyming? I think it's something of an art form, myself.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

...Ben Franklin, who said that those who would surrender their freedom for security deserve neither.

Mr. Franklin never lived to see the Civil War. Lincoln suspended a lot of rights during this period, actions that would have most people here tearing their robes and gnashing their teeth if they were done today. Yet, at the conclusion of the war, these rights were returned without incident.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Mr. Franklin never lived to see the Civil War. Lincoln suspended a lot of rights during this period, actions that would have most people here tearing their robes and gnashing their teeth if they were done today. Yet, at the conclusion of the war, these rights were returned without incident.

Were they?
States rights have never been the same since. This has lead to the federal government's excessive power, and it set the standard that the states' participation in the Union is no longer voluntary. That our country instead existed to further the goals of some, not all.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Mr. Franklin never lived to see the Civil War. Lincoln suspended a lot of rights during this period, actions that would have most people here tearing their robes and gnashing their teeth if they were done today. Yet, at the conclusion of the war, these rights were returned without incident.

when, good sir, will the war against terrorism be won, then?

can anyone imagine a point at which the president will say "well, we sure got that terrorism good, war's over. lets return civil liberties to the people now. mission accomplished!"

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by noodle

when, good sir, will the war against terrorism be won, then?

can anyone imagine a point at which the president will say "well, we sure got that terrorism good, war's over. lets return civil liberties to the people now. mission accomplished!"

When the Islamic world has grown up and its citizens have free speech and a say in their government, the disaffected will be able to deal with the causes of their frustrations, and Israel and the West will no longer be the convenient scapegoats they now are.

It'll take a long time, but a liberal democratic Middle East whose people finally enjoy the freedoms we take for granted is certainly achievable, and that is the long-term goal of the war on terror.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

When the Islamic world has grown up and its citizens have free speech and a say in their government, the disaffected will be able to deal with the causes of their frustrations, and Israel and the West will no longer be the convenient scapegoats they now are.

It'll take a long time, but a liberal democratic Middle East whose people finally enjoy the freedoms we take for granted is certainly achievable, and that is the long-term goal of the war on terror.

so you're suggesting we declare war on a religion? THATs a great idea. or that the war on terror is not a war on terror but a war to free the middle east from its oppressive religion?

what about saudi arabia? monarchy. will we invade them to change it to liberal democracy? yeah, right.

didn't we say we were going to get rid of communism a while ago? i'm pretty sure its not dead. here is a cute little article on the red scare. notice the cartoon at the top. familiar?

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by noodle

so you're suggesting we declare war on a religion? THATs a great idea. or that the war on terror is not a war on terror but a war to free the middle east from its oppressive religion?

what about saudi arabia? monarchy. will we invade them to change it to liberal democracy? yeah, right.

You're reading things I didn't write. Please be more careful.

Didn't say we declare a war on a religion. Didn't say we invade countries to effect political change. Only that the stated objective of the war on terror is to cause the systemic change necessary in the Islamic nations so that terrorism against the West and Israel is no longer the outlet it currently is.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by prototoast

Were they?
States rights have never been the same since. This has lead to the federal government's excessive power, and it set the standard that the states' participation in the Union is no longer voluntary. That our country instead existed to further the goals of some, not all.

I will agree that Federal power grew to eclipse state's rights after the Civil War. This, however, is not what I'm talking about. This shift in power was due to the war itself, not any act of the president at the time. I'm talking about various acts (I don't remember the names for them) by Lincoln which severely limited free speech, detained many people without formal charges or trial, etc. After the war, the people were let free, and the restrictions on free speech lifted.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by noodle

when, good sir, will the war against terrorism be won, then?

can anyone imagine a point at which the president will say "well, we sure got that terrorism good, war's over. lets return civil liberties to the people now. mission accomplished!"

I still don't see which civil rights I've lost that need returning.

I don't know when the War on Terror will be over. As Epee Pox pointed out, it may well be when the Middle East has a chance to advance some, economically, politically, socially. When more countries cease to be despotic, then their economies can advane; as people become wealthier, their need for scapegoats decreases. Especially if they're in a trading relationship with said scapegoat. I think if democracy can be made to take hold (even a little bit) in Iraq, it will be a huge foot in the door.

[Micheezehead]

The way I see it, the Patriot Act takes away the right "to be safe and secure in our homes" It was a knee-jerk reaction by the governement. It does allow the arrest and searching of people without any oversight. Read the full text of the act and there are a lot of scary things in it.

The war on terrorism is an abstract concept. It is like the "war on drugs." It can't be won. The terrorists will not all get together and say "we give up. you win" We were in a trading relationship with Iraq. It isn't any governments that we are fighting. Terrorists do not come from any specific country or even share the same ideology. We can't win. Not unless we kill everyone.

[Soldier]

How safe and secure in your home were the people who lived right near the Twin Towers? How safe and secure are people who could get infected with a bioweapon? I'd rather worry about the possibility of a few people being wrongly investigated, and know that the chances of a major terrorist attack are severely lessened.

Now, of course, you'll start howling about how we shouldn't sacrifice the rights of a few to help protect the majority, since we don't actually know what threat is there. Yet innocent people are imprisoned frequently by the justice system we have now. We take the chance that some will be wrongfully accused, in order that we may convict and imprison the real criminals. Don't know if any of that makes sense to anybody but me...

As for winning the War on Terror: No, it can never be done completely. Just as there will always be crime, and criminals. But we can prosecute and shut down the major terrorist organizations. There aren't always visible governments to them, but we can see who their friends are - governments that help terrorists. We can win. Winning doesn't mean there will never be another act of terrorism anywhere ever; it means that Al Qaeda will be a thing of the past, a lesson in the history books of what happens to you if you screw with the US, and it means that while always a possibility, terrorism will be a very unlikely thing. We can win.

Oh, and we weren't in any significant kind of trading relationship with Iraq. There was a little bit of "oil for food", but that was all.

[Micheezehead]

Was it our government that attacked the twin towers? Security and civil liberties are too different issues. Would breaking into the terrorist's home revealed them to be terrorists? perhaps but we don't really know. Would the Patriot Act have prevented the attacks? Nope.

I won't howl that we are sacrificing the rights of a few. We aren't sacrificing anything. We are giving it away. How do you know that innocent people are being imprisoned everyday? The point of our justice system is not to punish any old person but rather the right person. If mistakes are made, they are rectified. When it is shown that you are innocent, you are released. Example: New DNA evidence is realeasing people that are wrongly convicted of a crime. The founding fathers framed our justice system with the intent of punishing the right person. Being wrongfully accused is not being imprisoned. Under the Patriot Act, a person can be arrested and held for a "reasonable period of time" without being informed why or having access to a lawyer. Your home can be searched without a warrant and without you being informed. This goes against much of what the founding fathers put into the constitution. And what if you were one of those people? Would you like to be arrested in the middle of the night and shipped the Quantanamo Bay without anyone knowing?

Now comes the part where you say: "I don't have anything to worry about because I don't have anything to hide" It isn't a minority that are protected by civil liberties but the majority.

And stopping terrorism can't be done without suspension of the constitution? The police are able to fight crime within the framework that is outlined? Al Qaeda is the equivalent of the boogieman. How do I know (since I am not in the government) when it is gone? How is the government going to prove to me that it is a thing of the past? On that subject, where is Osama Bin Laden? The war on terror cannot be won, people will always hate us for one reason or another. Minor groups can do just as much damage as major (Oklahoma City).