Fred Thompson and defense of the Patriot Act

S.B.Nichols · 01-14-2008, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

Perhaps... the Patriot Act is the one which steals the constitutional protection from search and seizure.

I guess that's a risk you take if you're working with a terrorist group.

**slap_j** · 01-14-2008, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.B.Nichols

I guess that's a risk you take if you're working with a terrorist group.

Like the United States during the Soviet-Afghan War?

S.B.Nichols · 01-14-2008, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slap_j

Like the United States during the Soviet-Afghan War?

bingo!

I can't defend that

bobthecockroach · 01-14-2008, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.B.Nichols

I guess that's a risk you take if you're working with a terrorist group.

I am sorry, but I don't trust the U.S. government with that discretion. The U.S. government has no right to search or survey anyone without the proper warrants. I don't care what terrorist organization they claim someone is working for.

S.B.Nichols · 01-14-2008, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

I am sorry, but I don't trust the U.S. government with that discretion. The U.S. government has no right to search or survey anyone without the proper warrants. I don't care what terrorist organization they claim someone is working for.

That's valid. I don't trust the government with a lot of things. And yet, I'd rather suspend the rights of people who want to cause harm then have another 2000 dead who didn't want to cause harm. And the argument isn't even valid for the Gitmo detainees, who aren't even American citizens and have no rights under the constitution (which is where the Military Commissions Act comes into play). Of course, even then the original point is mute because the courts have already ruled in favor of granting Habeas Corpus to prisoners, so I'm really not sure where the problem is.

I think both Fred and Ron were confused on the subject. I'm writing in my vote for Jack Bauer

bobthecockroach · 01-14-2008, 02:00 PM

Except the constitution doesn't only guarantee privileges to citizens.

Bryan · 01-14-2008, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

Except the constitution doesn't only guarantee privileges to citizens.

apparantly most people are ignorant on this point, but the constitution applies to any person, citizen or not, that is within any US space. This applies to bases on foreign soil, territories, and the states.

The only time the constitution doesn't apply is when it specifies citizens (like voting rights).

S.B.Nichols · 01-14-2008, 02:15 PM

That is at the center of the debate, and there are a lot of well educated people on both sides of it, I wouldn't call any of them ignorant.

Even taking that side of the argument, the point is that the courts have already ruled in favor of granting Habeas Corpus, so its a bit of a 'no-issue' issue. Like ordering a coke in Waco. You're getting Dr. Pepper whether you like it or not.

tht00 · 01-14-2008, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.B.Nichols

That's valid. I don't trust the government with a lot of things. And yet, I'd rather suspend the rights of people who want to cause harm then have another 2000 dead who didn't want to cause harm.

Here's the problem. Effectively all of our rights are suspended (potentially), not just the 'bad guys'.

S.B.Nichols · 01-14-2008, 03:31 PM

I see that point, but the reality is that my rights are only potentially affected if I'm funding, contacting, or actively working with terrorist organizations. Otherwise, the government has no interest in me. I haven't lost anything with the PatAct, and I've gained security for myself and my family.

tht00 · 01-14-2008, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.B.Nichols

I see that point, but the reality is that my rights are only potentially affected if I'm funding, contacting, or actively working with terrorist organizations. Otherwise, the government has no interest in me. I haven't lost anything with the PatAct, and I've gained security for myself and my family.

Sorry... I don't buy that.

When the government bypasses the Bill of Rights (and thus, Constitution) that is vital to the balance of power in the nation, it's gone way too far.

When the lines limiting governmental power outlined in these documents becomes 'fuzzy', each further infraction would become less noticed and resisted.

It quickly becomes a slippery slope. If the government can defy the Bill of Rights by calling them "terrorists", then a simple change of definition of what a 'terrorist' is could target anyone.

S.B.Nichols · 01-14-2008, 04:32 PM

But, I still have to ask myself, "Why would the government want to 'get' me?" It comes back to the point that I've not lost any rights. Terrorists and those that support terrorism have lost rights, but apparently they never wanted them in the first place.

I really do understand your point, it is a slippery slope. But it comes down to who do I trust more, the people in the government, or the people who want to harm me and my family. It's a tough call, but I'll stay with the government.

bobthecockroach · 01-14-2008, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.B.Nichols

I see that point, but the reality is that my rights are only potentially affected if I'm funding, contacting, or actively working with terrorist organizations. Otherwise, the government has no interest in me. I haven't lost anything with the PatAct, and I've gained security for myself and my family.

Correction: your rights are affected if those things are true, if the government so much as THINKS those things are true, or if the government has any other reason to pursue you and can use those things as an excuse to do so.

tht00 · 01-14-2008, 05:09 PM

What happens when the government steps outside its bounds in other areas?

The ability to search and seize anyone on whim is significant. So far as I know, the normal checks and balances normally maintained are lost under the Patriot Act. Is there any accountability maintained? (serious question)

Should the government become oppressive, who is to stop them? The people? They're terrorists, remember? It's really not a far jump from a 'Patriot Act' mindset to a Gestapo-like police, taking down anyone who opposes their power.

That's why this issue must be dealt with now.

I've quoted this numerous times. Only seems appropriate to quote it again:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
--Attributed to Benjamin Franklin

S.B.Nichols · 01-14-2008, 05:34 PM

Good quote, but off point, I haven't given up anything at all. You fellows seem to think I should focus what the government might, and likely won't, do. I choose to focus on the people who have caused harm, and want to cause further harm, and those that associate with them.

And honestly, PatAct or not, if the government wants to limit your rights, it'll happen. FDR did it. So did Lincoln, who is considered by many historians to be both the greatest President and the greatest civil rights violator. Heck, every administration in the modern age has had the authority for warrantless wiretaps in cases of national security, only having to notify the proper authorities afterwards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tht00

The ability to search and seize anyone on whim is significant. So far as I know, the normal checks and balances normally maintained are lost under the Patriot Act. Is there any accountability maintained? (serious question)]

Look it up, tell us what you find. As the PatAct originally stood, it was pretty rough, but there have been some revisions, both good and bad.