Does this really surprise anyone?
It doesn’t surprise me in the least that Hatch wrote it.
Nothing that any politician does to increase the power of government suprises me. The only thing I’m suprised at is that it is being done openly. I would have expected it to appear as a rider on some totally unrelated bill passed with sweeping bipartisan support and with minimal (if any) exposure and debate.
But that might just be the cynnic in me…
Did anyone ever really think this thing was going to be temporary? One thing no government will ever do is give back power once it has it.
Okay, so here are my questions:
-
How will this hurt the Republicans in 2004? How hard will the Democrats jump on this?
-
What are its chances of passing?
-
I ask this one because I truly can’t recall: have any conservatives/Republicans on this board defended the Patriot Act? If so, have your feelings changed now that it’s being pushed as a permanent measure? Care to continue to defend it, and the people behind it, now?
The USA PATRIOT Act will be made permanent because the American people are too ignorant and lazy to understand its true intent. The media will be complicit in this stupidity because they cannot see the real significance. Besides, real significance for the media requires great pictures and attention-grabbing headlines. Substance was lost long ago. Fine print reality is left to the pundits and classified ads in the Sunday editions.
At the same time, the Bush Administration will ride the war euphoria with other things in its collective back pocket. The Republican Congress will remain true to its coattail calling and jump on the bandwagon just to get a piece of the action.
Sure, it’s possible the electorate will begin to focus from glazed eyes before the 2004 election. However, barring a major faux paus or another terrorist act within CONUS, Bush will be reelected to continue his rape and pillage of this country.
Even if the electorate is wiser than my cynicism and they do realize the emperor is wearing no clothes, the damage Bush will do between now and the election will have significant and long-lasting impact, regardless if he is reelected or not. For example, watch for a major dismantaling of the federal government late this summer, to be replaced with political contract workers when the new government fiscal year begins on October 1.
Finally, had the USA PATRIOT Act existed prior to 9/11, it would not have stopped those events from happening. The FBI, CIA and other law enforcement agecies would still have missed any of the clues leading up to 9/11.
The USA PATRIOT Act is not about protecting America and Americans from terrorism. It is all about protecting the power structure from the American people.
“I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against everyform of tyranny over the mind of man.” – Thomas Jefferson
“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.” – Thomas Paine
“Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” – Benjamin Franklin
Duckster: Do you really believe that this is going to happen? By “dismantaling” do you mean “layoffs”? Political contract workes, huh? Is that to mean self-serving misappropriations on the part of Dubya? In otherwords: can you please clarify those statements for the politically challenged and not-so-cynical?
To be honest with you, the Patriot Act I or II still isn’t close to the level of control the much-admired (by liberals, anyway) European Socialist Democracies have. It largely enhances information gathering. That said, I’m not sure if everything in the bill is needed, but overall it does nothing that is unexpected. regardless, I think it won’t pass permanently.
What in heaven’s name is a “political contract worker?”
Are you talking about Schedule C appointees? Or do you mean contractors? What?
As for the OP - what’s the problem? Many gun control laws were passed with temporary provisions, so named in order to gain the support of those who would otherwise be against them, and later made permanant. I don’t recall much outrage from the left over that tactic then.
As with any law, if you don’t like it, work to unseat the legislators that are in favor of it. That’s what representative democracy is.
- Rick
Thats no subsitute for convincing legislators not to pass the damn things in the first place for two reasons.
-
There are enough morons out there who will blindly vote the party line to substatnially dillute any effect one statute - even one that makes it possible for political enemies to dissapear with no legal recourse - will have on a candidates re-election prospects.
-
Assuming the Congress did change, you’d have a bitch of a time repealling the law. In the first place it’s harder to get rid of a bill than not have it in the first place, because the new status quo will be the bill and barring some highly publicised crisis, Congress is loathe to make waves.
In the second place, by the time Congress changes administrative and law enforcement agencies will have attached themsleves to the new powers. This will make it harder and more expensive to change the law.
In the third place, if a law like this gets passed now, it’ll go to the Supreme Court. And I dont trust the convserative political activists to strike it down… I worry about the SC establishing precedant in a case concerning the Patriot Act that either 1. modifies all 4th/5th amendment common law to allow more of this expanded police power or 2. making it harder for Congress to repeal the act.
Well, what if they do?
The time was when illegally obtained evidence was admissible in both federal and state court. Then Wong Sun came along, and the courts ruled that the Constitution required federal courts to exlcude evidence obtained without a warrant. But state courts could still use such evidence… until Mapp was decided. That was 1961.
So was the Court wrong, in Mapp, to take away the states’ ability to use illegally obtained evidence against criminals?
Or would the Court be wrong now?
In other words, you seem to suggest that as long as the Court does what you want, they’re right. When they don’t, they’re wrong.
How about not depending on the unelected, lifetime tenured guys to agree with you, and working the democratic process to ensure appropriate legislation is passed?
- Rick
Because the mass of voters appear to be heading America straight to tyranny. And I don’t want to live in a tyranny.
Hey, maybe when President Bush has been declared President Bush For Life, some kindly Middle Eastern nation will come along and free us!
Hey, Bricker! Don’t you know that two Wongs won’t make it right?
:::runs away:::
[Homer]
When will people learn; democracy just doesn’t work!
[/Homer]
It’s a valid question. Why isn’t this making huge, massive news? Why aren’t people outraged?
Why don’t people care?
Why is this thread so quiet? Repubs, have we gotten to the point that we follow blindly without any hesitation? This is absolutely everything that the Pubs have fought against. We the People should always want less government intervention in our day to day lives. Has the time come that we are willing to trade “some” liberties for protection? God I hope that the answer it not what I fear.
It’s unpatriotic to be outraged, dontcha know? Anyone who speaks out against this is going to be accused of not caring about the safety and security of the American people. Plus, they’ll be able to point out that the Patriot Act is working, much in the way that “this rock keeps away tigers.”
Unless it directly and immediately affects their lives, Americans really don’t care about much of anything political. For far too long, this country has been sunk in a quicksand of apathy.
Also, many people don’t watch the news, or read a newspaper. My husband teaches at our local college and routinely polls his students to see how many of them keep up with the news. (Bear in mind that more than half of his students are adults.) Last time he asked, when the war-or-no-war debate was at its peak, only a handful said that they did. (Though they all had loud, strident opinions.)
Not to mention that the Patriot Act story will more than likely get less time than a review of the latest movie, or human-interest stories. Newsertaiment isn’t big on the “boring” politics stories. When they must report on them, it’s best to hurry through and follow up with a report on the latest sex scandal or celebrity divorce. (Luckily for them, at the present, we have footage of cool explosions to shift to.)
Boiled Frog Syndrome, Revtim. These sorts of powers don’t affect any significant number of people’s daily lives. Most people do not live in the future theoretical, they live in the here and now, which is fine, the water is balmy, and much more comfortable than the cold air outside the pot.
No surprise that the Republican-controlled Congress is working to pass this law during wartime. All kinds of unsavory bills tend to get brought up during wars, with certain legislators and interest groups taking advantage of those who feel that the best way to support the troops is through complicity with the government, allowing it to do whatever the hell it wants without that criticism that some have damned as unpatriotic. Lissa’s spot on about how diligently “newsertainment” will cover this frightening story.
Dammit, write your congresspeople! I do it. I write others’ congresspeople, too. I’m largely pleased with my delegation, and I do let them know, but I also feel obliged to write others, particularly moderates who might be willing to cross party lines. I’ve been disappointed in Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and George Voinovich (R-OH) before, but I see no recourse but to keep harping on them.
Don’t let them steal your country. These Patriot Act boosters are raping and ruining it, and you can’t afford to let them get away with it.
Well, I’d rather the Supremes say that certain activity is unconstitutional because the effect on freedom is more permanent. With legislation, its simply the mercy of Congress that prevents a tyrannical bill from being passed, and that mercy can change every 2 years.
Don’t buy into the great lie of the Republican party. When they say they are for less intrusive government, they don’t mean towards individuals, they mean towards big business. They don’t want the intrusion of environmental protection laws, they do not want the intrusion of industrial safety laws, and they do not want to be bothered with “nuisance” lawsuits when they injure or defraud the public.
With the exception of gun control, what they do want to do is control the actions of individuals: they want to tell women what they can do with their own bodies, they favor criminalization of drug use, they want to prevent gays from marrying, and they want to monitor private communications for subversive content.
Despite what they call french fries, The Republican Party is the biggest threat to individual liberty in the United States today.