Patriot Act: Good or Bad?

[Tim Gratz]

Tim wrote:

Get real about letting Bush run hogwild with our civil liberties?!?

Here is the dichotomy. Most reasonable people would not believe that the interception of international phone calls made to or by known or suspected terrorists constitutes the president running "hogwild" with our civil liberties. It is that simple, I suggest.

[Tim Carroll]

Most reasonable people would not believe that the interception of international phone calls made to or by known or suspected terrorists constitutes the president running "hogwild" with our civil liberties.

Rather than the rule of law, we should just allow such a great constitutional scholar and honorable gentleman as George Bush to decide autonomously where the line exists that separates the American Way Of Life from loathesome totalitarian, expansionist regimes? I don't thing so.

T.C.

[Tim Gratz]

Tim, no one has suggested that the decisions of the Bush administration should not be subject to scrutiny by the judicial process. Many of his war-time decisions have been so scrutizined. Some have been upheld. Others have not. So your argument is a false one because you are attacking a proposition no one has advanced.

I would also point out that Bush's allowing the interception of phone calls is a far cry from the action of that great defender of civil liberties Franklin Delano Roosevelt in imprisoning thousands of citizens of Japanese descent. It is far safer to be a Muslim fundamentalist in Geoge Bush's America than it was to be a Japanese in Franklin Roosevelt's. Can we agree upon that much?

Edited January 3, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Carroll]

Tim, no one has suggested that the decisions of the Bush administration should not be subject to scrutiny by the judicial process. Many of his war-time decisions have been so scrutizined. Some have been upheld. Others have not.

It is the evasion of appropriate scrutiny that is the issue.

I would also point out that Bush's allowing the interception of phone calls is a far cry from the action of that great defender of civil liberties Franklin Delano Roosevelt in imprisoning thousands of citizens of Japanese descent. It is far safer to be a Muslim fundamentalist in Geoge Bush's America than it was to be a Japanese in franklin Roosevelt's. Can we agree upon that much?

I believe it was Jim Root who wrote a great piece for this forum about the Korematsu case. I am not about to defend the state of the right of privacy or that of rascism during the 1940's. We have hopefully grown up as a people some since then. But I do not agree that the Japanese internment can be used in a comparative analysis, since, as I mentioned earlier, that was a legitimately declared war. Terrorism is as old as the hills; a "War On Terror" is a prescription for perpetual war against an ephemeral enemy without borders or sovereignty. Let's not applaud the safety of fundamentalist Muslims in America too soon.

T.C.

[Tim Gratz]

Tim wrote:

Terrorism is as old as the hills;

Respectfully disagreed. Despite the intensities of the Cold War, the communists never engaged in terrorist attacks on U.S. citizens.

We are in a new fight. It is a fight to the finish and our lives and liberties are at stake. The failure of the Democrats to understand what most American citizens understand is why GB II was re-elected.

[Tim Carroll]

Tim wrote: Terrorism is as old as the hills; Respectfully disagreed. Despite the intensities of the Cold War, the communists never engaged in terrorist attacks on U.S. citizens. We are in a new fight. It is a fight to the finish and our lives and liberties are at stake. The failure of the Democrats to understand what most American citizens understand is why GB II was re-elected.

The Cold War still involved international law and recognition of the sovereignty of nations. To discuss the war on terrorism in the same way is to mix apples and oranges. Robin Hood was a terrorist. The Boston Tea Party was terrorism.

My best friend's daughter is facing 290 years in prison because her environmental activism, allegedly involving some monkeywrenching, is now deemed terrorism.

T.C.

[Tim Gratz]

But we have agreed that although it is your claim that Bush is taking us down the road to fascism there has been no imposition of civil liberties during the Bush war on terrorism that even comes close to the Roosevelt internment of thousands of innocent Japanese citizens during WW II.

And what about Truman's using atomic weapons against Japanese cities, by the way?

Edited January 3, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Carroll]

But we have agreed that although it is your claim that Bush is taking us down the road to fascism there has been no imposition of civil liberties during the Bush war on terrorism that even comes close to the Roosevelt internment of thousands of innocent Japanese citizens during WW II.

We can agree that the internment of the Japanese took place in time of declared war and reflected society's general rascism, which has no place in the 21st century. I thought our agreement was on the point that Bush's election was fear-inspired. Unlike some wrongful actions following Pearl Harbor, Bush has promoted fear for no such good reason, but rather for a generalized and long-term conservative agenda to install a police state. I would add my conviction that making enemies all over the world doesn't make us tough; it makes us stupid. Bush has made nothing and no one safer, while seeking to remove constitutionally guaranteed rights permanently.

T.C.

[Tim Gratz]

Tim wrote:

Bush has made nothing and no one safer, while seeking to remove constitutionally guaranteed rights permanently.

Here is where the rubber hits the road. Let's get down to specifics.

Please identify all Americans killed on American soil by terrorist actions post 9-11-2001.

Please identify which constitutionally protected right(s) Bush has attempted to permanently remove, other than (as we have previously discussed) the right to make international calls to terrorists without having those calls listened to.

Edited January 3, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Pat Speer]

T.G. I share your feeling that the warrantless listening in on overseas phone calls made by suspected terrorists is not such a bad thing. BUT...how do we know that's all they've been listening to? There is no public record...no paper trail...of whom they've been spying upon. It's been revealed that they consider PETA and Greenpeace terrorist groups, along with some Catholic charities... Were the phone calls of their members all listened in on? And what about the family members of their members? How long is the list? Just as they made a judge and members of congress swear not to reveal that warrantless spying was taking place, they may have made NSA employees swear to never reveal WHO they've been spying upon. It's an incredibly slippery slope... AND TOTALLY UNNECESSARY, since they already, under the law, can spy on people and get the necessary warrants retroactively. As far as I can see, the only logical reason for them not to seek warrants is that they are trying to hide whom they have been spying upon... Hmmm...

And then there's the question of credibility. Bush outright LIED about the Patriot Act--he assured us that no one would be spied upon without a warrant...even while he was already conducting warrantless spying. This is not only a LIE. It is a DAMNED LIE. A LIE told purely for his own political gain... Under what scenario pray tell is national security jeopardized by our knowing that warrantless spying has been conducted? LIKE TERRORISTS DON"T ALREADY SUSPECT THEY ARE BEING SPIED UPON??? Give me a break... Bush's lies and his swearing Pelosi and others to silence was done for one reason and one reason only. Bush is a COWARD and is afraid to face the music for his desperate acts...he was trying to deceive US... Think about it... warrantless spying, torture, holding suspects indefinitely without benefit of counsel, without their even being charged with crimes??? What country is this?

Edited January 3, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Tim Gratz]

Pat wrote:

holding suspects indefinitely without benefit of counsel, without their even being charged with crimes??? What's going on?

I have not stated that I agree with every provision of the Patriot Act or for that matter every position of the Bush Administration. I am quite troubled about persons being held indefinitely without benefit of counsel.

Regarding the lie about warrantless wiretaps, I am reminded of the famous Churchhill quote that in a time of war truth is so precious it must always be guarded by a bodyguard of lies. It could very well be that the administration wanted terrorists to believe they could communicate telephonically without surveillance. To say that terrorists knew their calls were being monitored is to assume they were smarter than us, a proposition with which I would beg to differ.

Edited January 3, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Pat Speer]

Pat wrote:

holding suspects indefinitely without benefit of counsel, without their even being charged with crimes??? What's going on?

I have not stated that I agree with every provision of the Patriot Act or for that matter every position of the Bush Administration. I am quite troubled about persons being held indefinitely without benefit of counsel.

Regarding the lie about warrantless wiretaps, I am reminded of the famous Churchhill quote that in a time of war truth is so precious it must always be guarded by a bodyguard of lies. It could very well be that the administrastion wanted terrorists to believe they could communicate telephonically without surveillance.

I know that's what we're supposed to think, but does anyone really believe that terrorists are that stupid? There's a reason Osama and his friends have been hard to capture. I feel 100% confident that the only people deceived by Bush's ploy have been the American people. Like LBJ with the Warren Commission and the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, Nixon with his Vietnam policy and the early stages of the Watergate investigation , etc... the game is to do what one finds desirable for domestic reasons, and then come up with some sort of rationalization involving "National Security" when caught. It deeply saddens me that the citizens of the United States of Babyland are so scared of the world that we feel we need a lying Uncle to protect us. What makes me even sadder is that we'll elect any lying sack of crap who says he'll cut our taxes and beat up the boogeymen in the bushes, no matter how ineffective he is, as long as he doesn't make us look at ourselves in the mirror and see ourselves for what we are... a decadent empire unworthy of respect...

[Tim Gratz]

Pat wrote:

and see ourselves for what we are... a decadent empire unworthy of respect...

I suggest Pat's perspective demonstrates the difference between the far left and the rest of America.

There is a reason why hundreds of people annually literally risk their lives to come to our great country.

We remain the land of the brave and the home of the free.

Beside our high standard of living, we have a very high degree of political and religious liberty in this land of ours, as well as a great tolerance for people of all races and creeds.

The great percentage of Americans are generous, caring people who are willing tgo sacrifice themselves to help those in need, both in America and abroad.

A conservative is someone who still gets a lump in his throat and perhaps a tear in his or her eye when he or she sees the flag and understands what it represents, not a "decadent empire unworthy of respect" but rather "a shining city on a hill", as President Reagan once quoted.

Edited January 3, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Pat Speer]

A conservative is someone who still gets a lump in his throat and perhaps a tear in his or her eye when he or she sees the flag and understands what it represents, not a "decadent empire unworthy of respect" but rather "a shining city on a hill", as President Reagan once quoted.

That's a bunch of crapola, my friend. Liberals are just as patriotic, probably even more patriotic, than those who rap themselves in the flag and refuse to acknowledge the tremendous mistakes we've made in recent years. I agree with Reagan that we could be "a shining city..." I just don't believe we've fulfulled our promise.

To paraphrase some fool "some look at what is and ask why...while others look at what could be and ask "why not?" Liberals ask why not while conservatives think it's un-American to ask any questions at all...

I'll go further. Those who honesty believe in "America: right or wrong" are not patriots at all, IMO. Is an employee who lets his employer squander business opportunity after business opportunity without pointing out the company's mistakes a good employee? I think not. Similarly, is a citizen who sits back and rallies round the flag whenever his country's leaders make a mistake a good citizen? But that's simplifying things. Conservatives whine like a stuck pig when they find some DOMESTIC issue they disagree with, e.g. Roe V. Wade. Why is it then that "conservatives" consider it un-American and un-patriotic to protest our involvement in a war that is causing the world to hate us, but consider it patriotic to cut taxes and reduce the size of government even at the expense of social services for the needy and the poor? And why do "conservatives" think it's okay for our government to throw its weight around on the international scene but not okay for our government to set standards for the teaching of science and history in our own schools?

The only reason I can come up with is that they are not conservatives at all, but IMPERIALISTS.

[Dawn Meredith]

T.G. I share your feeling that the warrantless listening in on overseas phone calls made by suspected terrorists is not such a bad thing. BUT...how do we know that's all they've been listening to? There is no public record...no paper trail...of whom they've been spying upon. It's been revealed that they consider PETA and Greenpeace terrorist groups, along with some Catholic charities... Were the phone calls of their members all listened in on? And what about the family members of their members? How long is the list? Just as they made a judge and members of congress swear not to reveal that warrantless spying was taking place, they may have made NSA employees swear to never reveal WHO they've been spying upon. It's an incredibly slippery slope... AND TOTALLY UNNECESSARY, since they already, under the law, can spy on people and get the necessary warrants retroactively. As far as I can see, the only logical reason for them not to seek warrants is that they are trying to hide whom they have been spying upon... Hmmm...

And then there's the question of credibility. Bush outright LIED about the Patriot Act--he assured us that no one would be spied upon without a warrant...even while he was already conducting warrantless spying. This is not only a LIE. It is a DAMNED LIE. A LIE told purely for his own political gain... Under what scenario pray tell is national security jeopardized by our knowing that warrantless spying has been conducted? LIKE TERRORISTS DON"T ALREADY SUSPECT THEY ARE BEING SPIED UPON??? Give me a break... Bush's lies and his swearing Pelosi and others to silence was done for one reason and one reason only. Bush is a COWARD and is afraid to face the music for his desperate acts...he was trying to deceive US... Think about it... warrantless spying, torture, holding suspects indefinitely without benefit of counsel, without their even being charged with crimes??? What country is this?

I wonder if the German's recognized fascism when it was upon them either? Or if they just accepted it, laying down, as all these conservatives are doing here.

Truly terrifying times these. And of course it's the dissidents who will soon be considered "terrorists",

so Gratz has nothing to worry about. His apple pie and flag will be safe. But those of us who dare to

be critical of the abuses of this administration best be very careful about what we say online or on the phone. Anyone who isn't a bit paranoid and leery today is braindead, imho.

Dawn