# A good act now in the wrong hands



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Some people can handle power, some can't. The Patriot Act never bothered me with Bush, but it does now. Bush was looking for terrorist connections, what's Obama going to look for? Why does he need a security force as strong or stronger than our military. Who does he plan to move against? What's he want to do turn the whole country into one big Waco if we don't elect him dictator?



> Mom says Patriot Act stripped son of due process
> 
> Posted: Apr. 29, 2009
> 
> ...


----------



## Lil Sand Bay (Feb 2, 2005)

No Plainsman ... it was always a terrible act for the very reasons your post points out. 
As I recall, a very large number of concerned american citizens tried to point this out during its passage. The Patriot Act severly limits and dimishes the rights of ALL american citizens! Its now a classic example of "do unto others" for many of those who supported it. 
To believe otherwise now, you would have had to originally believe that our country was going to have a right wing conservative government in place forever, and ever, and ever. Thats just something which is simply not supported by the history of our nation. 
I'd certainly join with you now in helping to replacing it with legislation which achieves its goals without stripping those basic rights from any of us.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

Obama is seeking ultimte control as a closet dictator.....he made this far as a closet Mulsim, he believes now he can go all the way..


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I'd certainly join with you now in helping to replacing it with legislation which achieves its goals without stripping those basic rights from any of us.


I had never expected Americans to use it against other Americans this way. I expected it to be used for wiretap only, and only if they had records of someone in some way contributing to a terrorist organization. I didn't think about anyone as nuts as Napolitano who would consider veterans, Christians, NRA members, people who display flags and such as terrorists. I expected common sense from our leaders. Even the crazy gun control liberals.

Thanks for the willingness to join in even when I was naive enough to think these nut jobs were actually fellow Americans. I understood the argument against me, I just thought we needed it at the time, and Obama said he would get rid of it his first day in office. I guess I deserve a kick in the behind for taking him for his word about anything. I just thought that since liberals hated the term Patrio that Obama would get rid of it.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

I think the reason the patriot act was passed so it can be used to track all Americans was because the law makers were afraid it would be "ethnic profiling" if it was for only persons deemed likely to be a terrorist. I remember in the MSP airport the TSA security was going over a gray haired senior probably looking for explosive sneakers! :eyeroll:

I do remember the consensus that after the then current administration was over, the next administration could use the Act in ways that it wasn't intended for. The ACLU would have had a ball with the government if the patriot act was any different. Welcome to a one party government.

uke:


----------



## Lil Sand Bay (Feb 2, 2005)

Unfortunately politicians, on all sides, too frequently pass legislation which has unintended consequences. One can speak of legislative intent only until it becomes law... then the intent is meaningless and the law "is what it is".

I remember 30+ yrs ago when I worked with the Minn. Legislature a bill got going to provide free fishing and hunting licenses for the senior citizens, the disabled, and wounded veterans. Since it involved $ it had a tortured route through many committees in both houses before coming to the Senate floor for a vote, although it had great voter appeal for the politicians and had broad non partisan support. Finally in its last committee before going to the Senate floor, one committee member asked the author..."Senator, free hunting licenses for the blind???" 
I suspect the Patriot Act will, at some point soon, go where that legislation went.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> law makers were afraid it would be "ethnic profiling"


You mean liberals were afraid of "ethnic profiling". Sure, I understand, we both know that never works. For example: your setting along the road in North Dakota, in a squad car , and all of a sudden this teenage kid with a tan darker than you or I drives by in a $300,000 Lamborghini, Florida plates, dread locks, cap on sideways, $5000 in gold around his neck, and another $2000 in rings, including the one in his nose, and right away you think "ha, guy on his way to a church revival".


----------



## wiskodie1 (Sep 11, 2006)

What can happen will happen...that's why the people of this country should realize that if you allow it to be a possibility then you can expect it to become a reality. I find it mind boggling that anyone could not have seen this coming&#8230;..only made possible by self deception and total lack of understanding.

Plainsman&#8230;do you think human nature has ever changed?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman&#8230;do you think human nature has ever changed?


No, but some people have integrity and some do not. I am always amazed that those with no integrity what so ever can often defeat those with integrity in the political arena. I don't expect a law to catch terrorists to be used against the American people. I don't expect tyranny from our leaders.

Off topic, but I see they are debating on FOX this morning about where to let the Gitmo prisoners go. Evidently even though they were captured on the battle field some liberals think some of them are innocent and should be released. The crazy thing is they are willing to release them here, and I don't remember the congressman's name but he thinks they are entitled to welfare and social security.

The woman democrat strategist said any American prison is capable of housing the others. When some guy said one terrorist now in a New York prison stabbed a fellow prisoner through the brain she responded with "yes and he was punished too wasn't he". Tell that to the relatives of the guy stabbed through the brain.


----------



## wiskodie1 (Sep 11, 2006)

The American people need to stay a bit more vigilant when it comes to bills that have the ability to destroy our liberties. Our founding fathers new well the history of man, and even though technology has come a long way since the founding of this country&#8230;man has not, and for that reason we need to be on constant guard and do our best to protect ourselves from&#8230;..ourselves.

The mess with Gitmo is a mess, our biggest problem is that it is nowhere close to being a cut and dry matter.

We should never have brought them to Gitmo in the first place! It is a piece of our country, and now that we have brought them in, we are finding that we are stuck with them.

Next on the list&#8230;..I'm guessing some of them could very well be innocent, our country declared war on them, and there WHOLE country is a battle field. So saying that they were found on a battle field is not the most accurate of statements, and could even be called propaganda. After all there is no telling whether these guys got pulled out of a foxhole with a gun in their hand or out of their house on accusations. The first instance is cut and dry the second one is a pain in the butt, because without trial we will never know whether the accusations against them were true or false. I'm sure we have all read our history books enough to know that in times such as this, false accusations are a very common thing, sort of like the Salem witch trials. And while a great majority or our country could care less about whether they are guilty or innocent. This issue goes against our rule of law&#8230;..and it is because of that that I find I would rather error on the side of safety. I believe they should all be given a fair trial in our court of law. If we should deny them there due process while they are in our country leaves the door wide open for our own government to do the same to us.

"_Human rights originate in Nature, thus, rights cannot be granted via political charter, because that implies that rights are legally revocable, hence, would be privileges"_

we cannot allow ourselves to pick and choose right and wrong based off of our feelings, and we should not deceive ourselves by saying that this issue is different from our own. This country was built on a rule of law that states our(all people's) rights are given by god and not granted by the government. And to deny anyone those writes will inevitably result in the loss of our own&#8230;..

This Gitmo happens to fall right in line with the thread of the patriot act. In that we gave them the power and ability to abuse our liberties and now we act surprised when it happen? If we allow our government to hold those prisoners without trial we give them a precedents to do the same to us&#8230;.at the moment all our government needs to do is to declare you are an enemy combatant and they can have your rights revoked and held without trial. Just like we did with the prisoners at Gitmo and just like what they did to the young man in the article from this thread.

There is the history of man written into our constitution and bill of rights and it was writing into it for a reason. Do not deceive yourself on these issues. There is no two ways about it. You ether support and uphold what our founding fathers gave us or you don't. I hope anyone that has ever supported the patriot act is hanging there head in shame after this article. And I only wish that this was enough of an eye opener for everyone to realize that this bill needs to be trashed before it is brought to bear on the American people.

Plainsman&#8230;.as for your belief in the integrity of men&#8230;it is a beautiful and romantic thought. To bad the world runs on a mob mentality.

Sleep tight and sweet dreams


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> "Human rights originate in Nature, thus, rights cannot be granted via political charter, because that implies that rights are legally revocable, hence, would be privileges"


I like that, but I like the constitution better that says endowed by God.

As for many of your other points I agree with much of it. Even the hang my head in shame part. Not that the Patriot Act was bad, but that I didn't see some people would abuse it. I had more faith in people, even low life politicians, but I didn't expect as low as Obama.

I will disagree with one part strongly. 


> We should never have brought them to Gitmo in the first place! It is a piece of our country, and now that we have brought them in, we are finding that we are stuck with them.


Many of Bush's people have explained this many times. They brought them to Gitmo because it is not part of our country any more than our military installation in Japan or the Philippines are part of our country. They explained that the reason they did this is because rather than having the rights our country would provide they were subject to the Geneva Convention. Because they are terrorists in no uniform and supporting no nation the Geneva convention provides different rules. The whole idea of Gitmo was to avoid their access to the United States courts and leave them subject to military court.


----------



## Bustem36 (Feb 5, 2008)

Plainsman said:


> > I will disagree with one part strongly.
> >
> >
> > > We should never have brought them to Gitmo in the first place! It is a piece of our country, and now that we have brought them in, we are finding that we are stuck with them.
> > ...


Actually I believe that if they are not part of an organized military the Geneva Convention still doesn't apply to them. That's why the interrogation techniques that are being disputed because they shouldn't even be an issue. Because, as a terrorist group and not a organized military they technically have no rights even under the Geneva Convention.

I may be wrong but thats how I understand it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

No, your right, I just forgot that part of it. Not different rules under the Geneva convention, they don't have protection under the Geneva convention.


----------



## wiskodie1 (Sep 11, 2006)

I think it's safe to say....we shouldn't have been believing Bush any more then we are believing Obama. He was wrong then and he is wrong now. The courts have ruled and I hope it will be remembered.

The administration's rationale for sending the prisoners to Guantanamo in the first place was that it was beyond the reach of U.S. law and therefore that prisoners could be held there indefinitely and virtually without rights --- without being charged, seeing lawyers or even told why they were being held.

But U.S. courts have ruled against that and insist that Guantanamo is not beyond the reach of U.S. law. The detainees, they say, do have rights. The administration can be expected to appeal and fight this every inch of the way, but the original rationale for holding prisoners at Guantanamo is collapsing.

http://www.ciponline.org/cuba/opeds/gra ... 0gitmo.htm


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Lil Sand Bay said:


> No Plainsman ... it was always a terrible act for the very reasons your post points out.
> As I recall, a very large number of concerned american citizens tried to point this out during its passage. The Patriot Act severly limits and dimishes the rights of ALL american citizens! Its now a classic example of "do unto others" for many of those who supported it.
> To believe otherwise now, you would have had to originally believe that our country was going to have a right wing conservative government in place forever, and ever, and ever. Thats just something which is simply not supported by the history of our nation.
> I'd certainly join with you now in helping to replacing it with legislation which achieves its goals without stripping those basic rights from any of us.


:thumb:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

wiskodie1 said:


> I think it's safe to say....we shouldn't have been believing Bush any more then we are believing Obama. He was wrong then and he is wrong now. The courts have ruled and I hope it will be remembered.
> 
> The administration's rationale for sending the prisoners to Guantanamo in the first place was that it was beyond the reach of U.S. law and therefore that prisoners could be held there indefinitely and virtually without rights --- without being charged, seeing lawyers or even told why they were being held.
> 
> ...


precisely.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

This issue comes down to a basic principle that I raised many months ago and one that Plainsman and others don't want to grasp.

This is an excellent quote:



> "Human rights originate in Nature, thus, rights cannot be granted via political charter, because that implies that rights are legally revocable, hence, would be privileges"


I agree that certain human rights originate in Nature, or as others might describe as "God-given". Another way to describe these sorts of rights is "inalienable" (I believe that Jefferson used this word).

If certain rights are inalienable, then it means that they apply to all people, regardless of whether they are US citizens or not, and regardless of whether they are soldiers or civilians. Following this logic, then the core set of rights in our Bill of Rights, including protection from unreasonable search and seizure, right to a speedy trial, and others, also apply to those political prisoners at Gitmo or those non-citizens whose phones the government is tapping.

This is why the Patriot Act was wrong when it was enacted and why it is still wrong. This is also why it is wrong to detain political prisoners for years without even charging them with a crime. I said it then and will say it now. What is interesting is how many people who question the Patriot Act now were staunch supporters of it when they were chanting the "war on terror(ism)" cheer.

It is also ironic how many people are decrying the joke of a trial for Roxana Saberi in Iran. People are calling for Iran to dismiss the charges because Saberi was not given the opportunity for a fair trial. However, while I agree that her trial was a joke, at least she had a trial.

How many prisoners at Gitmo have never even been charged with a crime, let alone been given the opportunity for a trial? Now we have the audacity to protest Iran's treatment of a US citizen that is a prisoner there?

If we want US citizens treated fairly in foreign lands, be it in a criminal proceeding or as a prisoner of war, we need to get our house in order and show that we can walk the walk as well as talk the talk.

Charge the prisoners at Gitmo or let them go. Throw out the Patriot Act and go back to due process. There are inalienable rights which both infringe upon. Remember, power currupts.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Political prisoner, no. Enemy combatant, yes. After the 9/11 attack the assumption had to be made for another eminent attack. Proven to be fact in L.A. The ultimate goal for the previous administration was the safety of America and all it's citizens, even the country haters.

Unfortunately we will never know what security was gained by the previous Patriot Act and the Club Gitmo detainees until much, much later.

Roxana Saberi, sad deal. But I must ask what in the world is she doing in Iran, top 2 enemy of the free world at this moment. She certainly must bear the brunt the of responsibility for her state of affairs.

As far as our citizens and soldiers being treated fair and just that will lie on the captors. But we did not see peoples heads being hacked off and brutal executions of the detainess at Club Gitmo, not even close.


----------



## wiskodie1 (Sep 11, 2006)

Hello Mr. 4CurlRedLeg
Did I miss the unveiling of the government documents for the LA attack? 
Which countries are the top 2 enemies of the free world?

thanks


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> This issue comes down to a basic principle that I raised many months ago and one that Plainsman and others don't want to grasp.


BigDaddy you must not want to grasp my latest posts.

Perhaps the Patriot Act should have had a sunset clause. I think immediately following 1911 we needed to get a handle on things quickly. Perhaps the Patriot Act should have only been one year.



> If certain rights are inalienable, then it means that they apply to all people, regardless of whether they are US citizens or not, and regardless of whether they are soldiers or civilians. Following this logic, then the core set of rights in our Bill of Rights, including protection from unreasonable search and seizure, right to a speedy trial, and others, also apply to those political prisoners at Gitmo or those non-citizens whose phones the government is tapping.


It is only in our constitution that our rights are granted. All people on the earth should have it, but unfortunately they didn't all start with the same people our nation started with. Our citizens should be entitled to it, and visitors legally within our nation should be entitled to it. I don't think our constitution should protect illegals within our borders or people outside our borders. That doesn't mean people should be treated badly, just that if they are here to cause us harm they should receive no benefits from our constitution. I also don't think the Patriot Act should be used without probable cause the same as any other wire tap requires. It should just for the sake of security be able to be enacted by presidential order so no one knows, but followed up within days with a court order to keep things honest. The fewer people who know at the time of the tap the better. Sometimes swiftness is extremely important too.



> This is also why it is wrong to detain political prisoners for years without even charging them with a crime.


I can agree with that, but by international law the military courts could and should have already handled it. I think much of it was held up simply because the democrats held things up simply for political power. I think they wanted defeat for Bush in Iraq even though it would have meant our soldiers died for nothing. I don't see the democrat party that protects our civil rights, I see them as power hungry and the party that would rather violate the civil rights of gun owners, Christians, people patriotic to this nation, than our enemies. They are simply power hungry and very dishonest.



> It is also ironic how many people are decrying the joke of a trial for Roxana Saberi in Iran.


Although I feel sorry for her she should have had the brains to leave when her documents expired. She is a victim more of her own arrogance than Iran. Still a person has to feel sorry for not very intelligent, or arrogant people. It wasn't America she was in, and after the length of time she was there anyone should have had the intelligence to know the danger of the situation.



> Remember, power currupts.


That's certainly true, but Bush certainly handled it better than Obama is. I think only illegal aliens, terrorists, welfare abusive people, gun control advocates, pro abortion, pro gay, pro tax, anti American, pro socialist etc, etc, etc. would disagree. After all are these not the things that Obama has supported so far?


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

4 Curl is correct.

Were this a war with a nation-state where we actually could identify the enemy/their soldiers by uniform and pull them from foxholes on a clearly defined battlefield, perhaps our methods could be different...

Frankly, I firmly believe that under President Bush, for every Tango Icehole that was killed or captured by our soldiers & Marines in battle, half a dozen were quietly whacked or captured by spec ops warriors who slipped in & out of various countries that never knew they were there...

Given the Dear Leader's & Far Left's clear intent to politicize & air out national security issues that by any measure of common sense & logic should remain secret, I suspect there are going to be far fewer spec ops & shadow warriors willing to do the things needed to keep us safe...


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

i am hoping there are at least a few real patriots left in this country, at all levels of government and in all branches too. when the going really gets tough, we will know the answer.


----------

