I was looking at http://www.2decide.com/table.htm
and noticed that Obama, McCain, Clinton, and Romney all support the Patriot Act. How can this be? I would think at least the Democrats would oppose it!
Thoughts? And anything you see in the link that surprised you?
Political suicide to oppose it. Your opponents can make too much hay over your “hatred of America” and the general public will eat it up with a spoon.
Even Russ Feingold, the lone Senator to vote against the Patriot Act, supported most of the provisions in it.
Given that, I’m not surprised to find that all the mainstream candidates for president voice support for it. Although I do believe that both Clinton and Obama have expressed reservations about a number of its provisions.
Maybe I falsely assumed, but isn’t the general population against it?
“The Patriot Act” has a nice ring to it for those who don’t know about its many controversial provisions.
Sort of like how the poor and middle class are all against the “Death Tax”. I mean, how could any sane person not be against the DEATH TAX? (queue ghoulish organ music)
In my experience, most people who claim to be against it are unable to accurately identify a specific provision of the Act that they oppose. People will say things like, “It lets the government search your house without ever getting a warrant!” when, in fact it does not.
I am unaware of any finding that the majority of the public is against it.
See here for the provisions.
What disturbed me most about it was not any specific provision but the way it was enacted. It was dumped into Congress’ lap right after 9/11/01 – signed into law 10/26/01 – you know a phone-book-sized bill couldn’t possibly have been drafted in that time. In short it was a wet-dream wish-list of authoritarian measures the Admin had all ready to go but knew it couldn’t get passed in the pre-9/11 political environment; and then when the window of opportunity opened, it was rammed through so fast hardly any Congresscritter had time to read it or did, as was shown graphically in Farenheit 9-11. As though any questioning or debate were somehow an imminent threat to national security and only a traitor would suggest otherwise. Where I come from, this is called “pulling a fast one.”
In terms of votes, neither Romney nor Obama could have voted for the PATRIOT Act which was passed before Obama was in the Senate and in a body of which Romney is not a member. But Obama said he would have voted against the original.
However, Obama did reauthorize a modified version of the original act. His explanation of that vote is here .
Some provisions of the act are good, others are bad. It’s a big act. As for where Americans stand, it depends on the provision. For example, one poll asked “One provision in the Patriot Act allows federal agents to secretly search a U.S. citizen’s home without informing the person of that search for an unspecified period of time. Do you approve or disapprove of this provision?” 71% of Americans disapproved. For other provisions, there was more support. Many of the more controversial provisions were disapproved of by a majority of people as of 2004 polling.
I’m unaware of polling done since the modified version was passed.
This is a better link than the one I gave.
They are against it until something terrible happens…
I couldn’t find any recent polls, but this one from Aug '05 states:
It’s a complicated piece of legislation. I couldn’t honestly say whether we’re better off with it (as is) or without it (none of it at all). Lots of legislation is like that.
Yes, instead they should be saying “It lets the government search your house without telling you that they did so, and without demonstrating that they had a warrant to do so.”
Better?
Only if they are morons. The Patriot Act is aimed at the American people, not terrorists. The Republicans WANT “something terrible” to happen, as it benefits them.
Yes, better. But still not right. “It lets the government search your house without telling you that they did so until after the fact…” would be right, although not complete.
Which version of the act are you talking about?
you forgot a “for an unspecified amount of time” somewhere in there, in between that part where they don’t have to tell you they did it, or demonstrate that they had a warrant to do it.
Is it or is it not the Patriot Act which has made it possible for the government to look at our banking records, check our library reading lists, listen in on our phone calls and read our mail without a warrant?
Or was that some other oppressive government?
While there was a need for tightened security, this has been excessive for a free country. Maybe I could have lived with it a little easier if they had used such a blatant propaganda technique in naming it the “Patriot Act.”
“Patriot” Act? What would they have called it if they had been honest? The Suspension of Constitutional Rights Act?
My definition is just fine, actually, as it is so loosely written that “after the fact” could mean just about anything.
Section 213 was not part of the sunset provisions, so it was in the original and remains to this day.
More like the “IOKIYAAR Act”. Bricker will shortly be against it.
-Joe