Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please tell me which provisions of the Act actually helped to prevent attacks.
Maybe small parts, but the thing is wayyyy too broad and intrusive.
See, that's the problem with top-secret, classified intelligence gathering tools - the public is ignorant of how well they work and exactly what kinds of threats we are intercepting with those tools.
The many disrupted attacks that the government has made public, both domestic and abroad, those can be directly attributed to Patriot Act.
Why do you think the dems/obama have not done away with it?
See, that's the problem with top-secret, classified intelligence gathering tools - the public is ignorant of how well they work and exactly what kinds of threats we are intercepting with those tools.
The many disrupted attacks that the government has made public, both domestic and abroad, those can be directly attributed to Patriot Act.
Why do you think the dems/obama have not done away with it?
Let's assume for a minute that the Act actually did disrupt "attacks" (or, rather, possible/potential attacks).
How far are we willing to go? We could lock everyone in their houses permanently so they wouldn't be permitted to leave and commit crimes elsewhere. I'm sure you're also in support of placing GPS on people's cars for tracking by the police, as discussed in another thread on this very forum.
Don't you find it ironic that it's called the "Patriot Act" when America stands for freedom? It seems to me that true patriotism would support freedom while keeping government intrusion as limited as possible.
Freedom comes at a price. Reasonable precautions should be taken, but the precautions should not be so extreme as to defy and blatantly violate what our country stands for.
Let's assume for a minute that the Act actually did disrupt "attacks" (or, rather, possible/potential attacks).
How far are we willing to go? We could lock everyone in their houses permanently so they wouldn't be permitted to leave and commit crimes elsewhere. I'm sure you're also in support of placing GPS on people's cars for tracking by the police, as discussed in another thread on this very forum.
Don't you find it ironic that it's called the "Patriot Act" when America stands for freedom? It seems to me that true patriotism would support freedom while keeping government intrusion as limited as possible.
Freedom comes at a price. Reasonable precautions should be taken, but the precautions should not be so extreme as to defy and blatantly violate what our country stands for.
For me, it's all about the Constitution. Patriot Act is unconstitutional. Water boarding is not. Hence my support for the later and my being against the former.
How far are we willing to go? We could lock everyone in their houses permanently so they wouldn't be permitted to leave and commit crimes elsewhere. I'm sure you're also in support of placing GPS on people's cars for tracking by the police, as discussed in another thread on this very forum.
Aren't you a bit hysterical here?
I am in favor of listening to phone calls, intercepting emails, looking at every electronic transaction that has a hint of a radical on the other end.
Who said the Patriot Act is unconstitutional?
Congress approved it, president signed it, the courts have looked at it - possibly some tweaking needs to be done.
Are you aware of the truly unconstitutional acts perpetrated during WWII?
See, that's the problem with top-secret, classified intelligence gathering tools - the public is ignorant of how well they work and exactly what kinds of threats we are intercepting with those tools.
The many disrupted attacks that the government has made public, both domestic and abroad, those can be directly attributed to Patriot Act.
Why do you think the dems/obama have not done away with it?
The first time I skimmed this post, I thought it was clever sarcasm.
The second time I read this post more carefully, I thought it was sarcasm with some faulty grammar (which, on a chat board, I am loathe to criticize).
The third time I read this post, I prayed (and I am not a religious man) that this person was not an American citizen, but instead part of some black propaganda plot run by Nigerian operatives.
If you are for the PATRIOT act as it stands, you are not a conservative. It has a huge amount of flaws. So as a conservative Libertarian I think it should be repealed as it stands. If drastic changes were made I would be in favor, because we do need a mechanism for intelligence on domestic terrorists, which do exist, and you are lying to yourself if you think they do not.
But when has the CIA, FBI, NSA or other intelligence agency really followed the law? Basically there could be no law at all on the books and these groups could still practice the same practices. Get real, who has the power to stop them?
If you are for the PATRIOT act as it stands, you are not a conservative.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
