Fox News speaks the truth?!

[bascule]

 

Judge Andrew Napolitano proceeds to issue a rather nasty diatribe on the Patriot Act and its usurpation of our Constitutionally guaranteed liberties.

 

"Is it time to become wolves and fight for our rights?" he asks.

 

The facts, according to him: if the FBI shows up with a self-written search warrant to seize items from your home, the Patriot Act stipulates that you are not legally allowed to tell anyone about it.

 

And... well... the guy is outraged, and so am I! Isn't writing search warrants the Judicial branch's responsibility, not the Executive's, and how the hell can they unconstitutionally silence you after your home has been unconstitutionally searched?!

 

When Fox News starts breaking these kind of stories, I'm really reaching the I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE point...

[Realitycheck]

I think Hillary Clinton voted for that one.

 

If it beats terrorism, what do YOU have to hide? The hell with the constitution and civil liberties. I don't personally care for so many people of the world infiltrating our borders. Are we to legally bind this open check to the world, saying "Come oh brothers, far and wide, come and share and plunder in our spoils as the dollar tumbles so low and weary!" Soon enough, we'll have robots to do all of the work. Who says that we absolutely MUST follow the letter of the law on an old piece of parchment that doesn't take into consideration the dynamics of today's world? Yeah, I know. Paranoia says that.

[Phi for All]

I think Hillary Clinton voted for that one.

For what one, the Patriot Act? Only one Senator didn't vote for it, unfortunately.

If it beats terrorism, what do YOU have to hide?

I have nothing to hide, and *everything* to protect.

The hell with the constitution and civil liberties.

Oh, you better be kidding....

I don't personally care for so many people of the world infiltrating our borders.

We have a very desirable country and I like it that way. Get over it.

Are we to legally bind this open check to the world, saying "Come oh brothers, far and wide, come and share and plunder in our spoils as the dollar tumbles so low and weary!"

Strawman and Misleading Vividness, both examples of horrible logic.

Soon enough, we'll have robots to do all of the work.

Great, then we won't need folks like you who aren't willing to fight for their rights as free citizens of the US.

Who says that we absolutely MUST follow the letter of the law on an old piece of parchment that doesn't take into consideration the dynamics of today's world?

Lots of very smart people.

Yeah, I know. Paranoia says that.

I carry a little paranoia around with me all the time now, ever since the Patriot Act was voted on before most had even finished reading it.

[D H]

There are many ways the terrorists "win" besides the obvious approach of destroying our infrastructure and taking our lives. Above all, the terrorists despise our freedom. The terrorists also win if they make us become exactly what they want the world to be: a world with very little freedom.

[iNow]

Per the thread title, even a broken clock is right twice per day. Per the thread topic, I'm excited to see a story on Fox that actually serves to discuss the ideals on which our country was founded, and not the vapid interpretations which serve as single minded type casts of them.

 

Our country is in serious trouble. Our people need to take that trouble seriously. We need to come together and look beyond the rhetoric. We cannot allow a terrorist to be whatever those in power say it is.

 

I am not saying that all actions of the government are abuse, I'm saying that they do abuse certain powers and we must step up to insist that stops.

[Realitycheck]

Well I, for one, do not mind sacrificing a few liberties here and there in order to straighten up the mess that the law has become when it comes to preventing terrorism, at the very least. Ever since the dawn of time, we have been stuck in this quagmire of people who just don't care and live only for themselves, not to mention those who would say that Jesus died for our sins, implying that they had never-ending permission slips to sin. These people have no incentive whatsoever to adhere to values. Who is going to fix it? The land of freedom? While I may enjoy my freedoms, I don't see this as a fix to the world's problems. Granted, the world is still young. We still have plenty of evolving to do as a race. I'm liking the Star Trek model of civilization. We are all on a mission, if only we all thought that.

[ecoli]

I've heard Napolitano speak on the subject before. (I think he's a Paul supporter as well).

 

His book is called "A Nation of Sheep"... I think the reason for that is self explanatory.

[bascule]

Well I, for one, do not mind sacrificing a few liberties here and there in order to straighten up the mess that the law has become when it comes to preventing terrorism

 

Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for safety deserve neither, and all that jazz...

[JohnB]

agentchange, your founding fathers put those protections there for a reason. It is said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. You appear to have forgotten what they learnt.

[JaKiri]

I think Hillary Clinton voted for that one.

 

Hillary Clinton caring about public perception more than anything else? WELL I NEVER

 

That being said, it was a huge document that was hoisted on people and COME ON LETS VOTE NOW NOW NOW WHAT ARE YOU A COWARD?

 

Well I, for one, do not mind sacrificing a few liberties here and there in order to straighten up the mess that the law has become when it comes to preventing terrorism, at the very least.

 

It doesn't prevent terrorism, though. America was doing just fine (except when it chose to ignore things for political reasons) in any case.

[Realitycheck]

Well, I am sorry for offending anyone, but I honestly believe that the path we tread down as a nation is fine the way it is now. I would just as soon headbutt anyone of these piss-ant magots if they got in my face, right before I slice off their head and post it on MY pike. I have ZERO tolerance for STUPID, PISS-ANT MAGOT S**T! MAGOT IDIOTS WHO HAVE NO BRAIN, SPREADING DEATH AND DESTRUCTION FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN TO IMPINGE ON MY SERENITY IN MINDLESS ATTEMPTS TO GET TO HEAVEN.

 

These judges are pissed off because they have been circumvented from doing their job, delivering the law without prejudice. What can I say? They are not wolves. They are old dogs. Who is going to set the new standard as they were letting the wolves get away, day in, day out, doing their job, at that. Give me a break. You really think that the U.S. will become a Gestapo state just because of the Patriot Act. Give me a break.

[bascule]

You really think that the U.S. will become a Gestapo state just because of the Patriot Act.

 

No, but it could. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and all that jazz...

 

Are you some parody who's trying to be the antithesis of our founding fathers? It's like you're taking all their quotes and inverting them to make your arguments...

[Phi for All]

First, agentchange, I apologize for my earlier tone.

 

While I can't dim my passion for this country and it's people, I certainly should be capable of keeping a civil level of dialogue going and not feel the need to let off steam in someone's face. Forgive me, that was no way to start off a discussion of this importance. Mea culpa.

Well, I am sorry for offending anyone, but I honestly believe that the path we tread down as a nation is fine the way it is now. I would just as soon headbutt anyone of these piss-ant magots if they got in my face, right before I slice off their head and post it on MY pike. I have ZERO tolerance for STUPID, PISS-ANT MAGOT S**T! MAGOT IDIOTS WHO HAVE NO BRAIN, SPREADING DEATH AND DESTRUCTION FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN TO IMPINGE ON MY SERENITY IN MINDLESS ATTEMPTS TO GET TO HEAVEN.

It's always seemed plainly (but circumstantially) evident to me that small little hate-filled extremist fringe groups like Al Qaeda could never function without wealthy sponsors who are *much less zealous* about what drives the fringe group than they are about the benefits the sponsor derives from the actions of the extremists. Without sponsorship terrorist cells would have no teeth.

 

I don't think the religious angle is the smart choice to play. It's unbeatable really since you can't argue with dogma. I say find out what cartels are footing the bill and go after them. Look for arms merchants, military technology specialists, all the folks who really profit from giving some pathetically backward zealots a bunch of money, munitions and training.

You really think that the U.S. will become a Gestapo state just because of the Patriot Act. Give me a break.

Let me ask you this: if something happened that absolutely convinced *even you* that the US was headed towards becoming a Gestapo state just because of the Patriot Act, what would you advise everyone to do? How would it be different than what's being suggested? Do you think a Gestapo state might be better for us?

[Pangloss]

I guess none of us deserve any liberties, since we've all sacrificed some of them in exchange for certain securities.

[iNow]

Have any active presidential candidates openly come out against the Patriot Act?

[Pangloss]

I believe most of the Democrats in the Senate, including Obama and Clinton, voted in favor of the renewal of the Patriot Act after amendments were passed which they felt added protections to civil liberties. Obama's statement was probably the most widely discussed at the time (early 2006).

 

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060216-floor_statement_of_senator_barack_obama_on_s2271_-_usa_patriot_act_reauthorization/index.html

 

IIRC that was discussed here at the time, in that Democrats were accused of saying one thing (wiretaps are wrong) and doing another (authorizing their continued use). Although I think there was a more recent piece of legislation passed on that issue, in 2007.

[bascule]

Have any active presidential candidates openly come out against the Patriot Act?

 

Kucinich is a board member of the National Coalition to Repeal the Patriot Act

 

Ron Paul has written articles condeming it as the "Unpatriot Act"

 

Both voted against it

[JaKiri]

Well, I am sorry for offending anyone, but I honestly believe that the path we tread down as a nation is fine the way it is now.

 

Even if you're enormously rabidly antiterrorism to the exclusion of civil liberties, then the patriot act is still terrible. It's taking things away from the populace for no gain.

[ParanoiA]

agentchange, your founding fathers put those protections there for a reason. It is said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. You appear to have forgotten what they learnt.

 

What? Nonsense. Them there laws was made long before we had horseless carriages and electronic gizmos....everything is completely different in our brand new dynamically explosive world we live in...

 

How could old fashioned ideas like personal responsibility, live and let live and power to the people possibly work nowadays, with all this tech and complex issues like terrorism??? The constitution was written during a time of simplicity. When stuff was really easy to figure out - good and evil, right and wrong, black hat / white hat. Those old geezers didn't have a clue what kind of craziness WE would have to deal with.

[Mr Skeptic]

Agentchange, one of the principles this country was built on is that the government should be split into separate branches to divide their power. Another principle is that the government should fear the people, not the other way around. This does have a price, as does everything, but the benefits -- stability and following the will of the people -- far outweigh the inefficiencies of splitting up the government and limiting their power.

 

Shifting the balance of power toward one branch is just asking for trouble. Enough trouble has already come due to the two party system that limits our power of selection.

[Realitycheck]

Principles of this country, constitutional rights and liberties, will of the people, yadda, yadda, yadda. I have seen it all, but the fact remains that when the gun was placed at YOUR senators' heads, all but one voted for it. When it expired, it was reinstated, with minimal changes. The only people making a big deal of it are not the people, but rather defense lawyers, conscientous judges, and the wrongfully accused, oh and yeah, candidates trying to glean a few extra votes. What can I say? If they are not terrorists, they better not be dealing drugs. Otherwise, what should they be afraid of? It all comes down to the same thing.

 

Have we not already forgotten what led us to these circumstances? Is it out of cowardice? No, it's called prevention. How many terrorists has it thwarted? The numbers are there, all because of this act.

[iNow]

Have we not already forgotten what led us to these circumstances? Is it out of cowardice? No, it's called prevention. How many terrorists has it thwarted? The numbers are there, all because of this act.

 

Be specific. Exactly what specific actions have been prevented due only to the Patriot Act... actions which could not have otherwise been stopped if the Patriot Act were not in place?

 

I challenge you to back up your rhetoric with specific examples on this one... Show us how the same success could not have occurred without the Patriot Act in place. Be specific.

[ecoli]

Principles of this country, constitutional rights and liberties, will of the people, yadda, yadda, yadda. I have seen it all, but the fact remains that when the gun was placed at YOUR senators' heads, all but one voted for it. When it expired, it was reinstated, with minimal changes. The only people making a big deal of it are not the people, but rather defense lawyers, conscientous judges, and the wrongfully accused, oh and yeah, candidates trying to glean a few extra votes. What can I say? If they are not terrorists, they better not be dealing drugs. Otherwise, what should they be afraid of? It all comes down to the same thing.

 

Have we not already forgotten what led us to these circumstances? Is it out of cowardice? No, it's called prevention. How many terrorists has it thwarted? The numbers are there, all because of this act.

And why do terrorists not even deserve to be told what they're being charged with, granted access to a lawyer, read their miranda rights...

 

Surely, if the government is so sure that they are really terrorists, they shouldn't be afraid of granting them these small measures of security. What is the government so afraid of? A person innocent of terrorism getting free?

[ParanoiA]

Have we not already forgotten what led us to these circumstances? Is it out of cowardice? No, it's called prevention. How many terrorists has it thwarted? The numbers are there, all because of this act.

 

What led us to these circumstances is rolling our military might all over the world and making excuses to jump in every conflict we can get something out of. If we would just trade freely and stay out of other country's political affairs and quit obligating our countrymen to serve our morality set on foreign soil we would be richer, stronger, safer and immitated.

 

Our borders could be lined with the billions of tons of military machinery and manpower used in Iraq. We could have the safest "open" border in the entire freaking world for half the cost if we would quit maintaining our global empire.

 

But, that's more of that "old school" logic.

[bascule]

How many terrorists has it thwarted?

 

As far as I'm aware, it's thwarted about zero legitimate terrorist threats