The price of freedom is not deciding upon rules for election difficulties until they arise. We are currently paying dearly for that “freedom”. One can only hope that in the next election the candidate with the largest popular vote will win. Then all those laws will start rolling back.
I think I’m somewhat conservative (which is not necessarily the opposite of liberal), and I would definitely have voted for McCain in the 2000 election. When Bush was chosen president by the Supreme Court, I thought it would be okay, that he was an idiot who would be kept from doing any damage by his staff. But now I’m quite upset at what he is doing, especially in terms of domestic affairs.
In fact, if Hillary beats Lieberman in the primaries, it seems likely that there may be no one to vote for in the final election of 2004. I don’t like her; the Republicans (not all of whose positions I support in the first place) are now worse than the Democrats and they are not being conservative at all. They have not gotten rid of even the “extreme” groups, not to mention the more common anti-abortionists who resort to acts of violence (I know, they’re not really daily occurences, but all the same, the Republicans accept donations from groups that are affiliated with those who feel too strongly–but that may just be my bias, as I am fully pro-choice).
The Patriot Act is an abomination and I sincerely hope that it will be repealed by the next president. I know that there is that balance between safety and security, but I feel that U.S. intelligence was not as watchful as it could’ve been with all the funding they get, and could have stopped any terrorist acts on American soil. Now, Bush is ignoring the economy–which is more important than the war, whether you think it’s justifiable or not–and adding tremendous amounts to the military budget, which is a waste. The Patriot Act’s vagueness and the fact that most (if not all) of the current administration is behind Bush/Ashcroft about it is frightening indeed. In the Senate, only one senator voted against it–and the other 99 senators turned out to support it. But most of all, when someone is held in prison, all details as to why they are being held should be available to their lawyers so that they can file suit if it becomes apparent that their client is being held for no reason.
That the FBI and/or other law enforcement agencies/officers can come into a library and demand to see the check out records of patrons, without stating why they want the records and I also believe they don’t need a warrant. Also, the librarians are forbidden to tell the patrons that their records have been looked at.
Also, the only reason that the Patriot Act passed in the first place was that the liberitarians and Democrats were promised by the Republicans that the more unsavory parts of the Act would be repealed in 2005.
Now Orrin Hatch, along with the usual Republican ilk want to make permanent those parts that would be repealed in 2005.
Could you explain this? I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
All the rules necessaary for an election were in place before the 2000 elections. The electoral college was firmly in place since, oh, the ratification of the constitution. Florida’s election laws (including those about conducting a recount) were in place well before Nov. 2000. The Florida Supreme Court wanted to throw those recount rules out the window, but they were there.
So what rules were missing?
As for the idea of largest popular vote winning, huh? Presidential elections do not hinge on the popular vote, but the electoral college vote. You do realize that neither candidate had a majority of the popular vote cast, right? That, at best, Gore may have been able to claim a small plurality? Even still, this represents only about half the registered voting public. Also, remember, absentee ballots were not reported in most numbers that are floating around, in some cases they have not even been tallied.
Akennet: Our election system has been screwed up from the beginning. For one simple reason, people in america are too stupid to think for them selves. (including our current president)
So instead they have the talking hads on television think for them, or the political parties. Democracy gives people theright to choose their leader, it also gives them the right to make their lives hell. Americians, as a population, are too stupid to be free.
(b) if it was all already legal, why the need for new legislation?
Are you just avoiding the questions being asked:
After reading this tell me, will you elect a president who supports PATRIOT act?
Also, if you still will elect a president who supports the PATRIOT act, what do you think is more important, safety or freedom. Also, what do you consider the price of freedom to be?
I certainly do NOT want a president that wants anything like the USA PATRIOT act in force.
The price of freedom is resonsiblity, not oppressive conditions. The CIA, INS and FBI failed in their responsibilities when planes flew into the WTC and Pentagon. Now American’s are paying for it with oppressive conditions. Thank-you President Bush.
And nothing in the article addresses the actual substance of the Patriot Act - you know, the words that are actually the law.
I’m not avoiding any questions being asked, although I notice you avoided mine.
So: yes, I would elect a President who supports the Patriot Act.
I think both safety and freedom are important, and in a contextless question, cannot choose which is more important. I supprt efforts to keep our country safe, consistent with the traditional constituional proections and freedoms we have enjoyed over the years.
Now, I answered your question. You answer mine:
What, SPECIFICALLY, do you believe the Patriot Act authorizes that is (a) bad, and (b) not already legal under other laws?
Here is a link that explains the breech of freedoms that the Patriot Act is:
Now the short of it, the Patriot Act violates the following:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
(a) Specifically, the Patriot Act authorizes the government to more arbitrarily and more oppressively interfere with and fuck up people’s lives.
(b) Sir, I’m not a lawyer and I am not about to do hours of research to answer a stupid question. And this is why it is a stupid question: Why would legislation be necessary if laws already permit everything that is being passed in that legislation? Maybe I’m being presumptuous, but I assumed that new laws being passed means that they didn’t previously exist. Or are our elected legislators even more bird-brained than I thought—sitting around passing laws that already exist?
Bricker, I can only assume that you are heavily gullible or have a personal interest in the government exerting more power over its citizens. The fundamental flaw in giving more power to the US government is the assumption that these are all guys that can be counted on to be purely benevolent 100% of the time and to never have their motives corrupted in any way. Are you living in a dream land? Do you really think that the US government consists of a bunch of Mother Teresas and can be entrusted to never do the wrong thing by us?
MrTuffPaws: The Fourth Amendment doesn’t protect you against all search - just that which is unreasonable. What authority do you offer for the proposition that the Patriot Act authorizes unreasonable searches? Specifically, please.
Actually, I don’t agree. I contend the Act doesn’t do what you claim it does. You are making the claim: I cannot point to where the Act DOESN’T say that. You must point to where the Act DOES permit law enforcement officers to obtain library records without stating why they need them.
So, answer my question, since it’s not pointless.
Is that your idea of a specific?
It is sadly lacking in … well… specifics. That is an excellent example of a GENERAL objection to the Act, I grant.
But it is in no way specific.
The Act does make changes. But everything I’ve read in this thread that is criticized as evil about the Act is NOT a change. The legislation effects several changes - but no one has mentioned them yet.
Surely you must have a concrete, specific reason to oppose this law, more than reacting to things others have told you? Surely you must have read the law to which you are so violently objecting?
If I identify at least three logical fallacies, do I win a new bicycle?
Argumentum ad hominen: you call me gullible, and suggest I am living in a dream land.
Strawman: You suggest I think the US government can do no wrong.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam: the law must do something new, even if I can’t identify what it is.
So, let me see if I’ve got this straight: "You can’t point to where the Act doesn’t say that (that being the fact that law enforcement agents can go into a library without a warrant and demand access to patrons records without giving any reason and with no probable cause. I must point to where the Act DOES permit law enforcement officers to obtain library records without stating why they need them."
Why is the burden on me?
And if this isn’t in fact true, (which it is), then why did my dad ask to look for examples of a search warrant and a court order on the Internet and after I found them, take them down to the library for the library board meeting (which my dad is a member of)? Why did my dad and I have a 90 minute discussion about this very issue with the head librarian?
Because there was nothing good on Tv that night?
Wait, I know, because we (we meaning me, my dad and the staff of our library) are living in the land of cupcakes and cans of buttercream frosting known as Delusion Land and we all dreamed up the Patriot Act.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Sheesh, having a discussion with you is like talking to a revolving door.
Because you are the one making the claim. You claim the law allows warrantless access to library records. The person making the claim has the burden of subtantiating that claim. That’s pretty much Debate 101.