Our rights are being taken away-Patriot Act

[zguy95135]

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12263&c=206

 

During the Christmas season the government passed an act under our noses. In the Patriot Act the government can now spy on your computer, and telephones and even use the evidence they find in court. They can now tap your phone at will and look at all your email and web searches without you knowing. They dont even have to have probable cause to do a search. The secret searching and spying isnt just limited to your PC, they can also search your house without a warrant and take photos and even seize property! Bush needs to go, look at what he is doing!!!

[Guest goldraven]

yes, he sure does need to go.

 

Nick

[Guest Aaron]

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313

 

Kerry voted for it, will he be any better?

 

Not that I completely agree with the Patriot act, but change for the sake of change is not always good.

[blueovalz]

Yeah, everybody got their flags out and waved them when the towers fell. And anybody who didn't was labeled a non-patriot. So when a bill titled "Patriot Act" was presented, what do you think would happen? What was the term.... "Sheepeople" ....as coining by another member??? Anyway, calling it the "Patriot Act" was as much of a crime as voting for it. The name in itself has politics written all over it.

[johnc]

Most of the changes to surveillance law made by the Patriot Act were part of a longstanding law enforcement wish list that had been previously rejected by Congress, in some cases repeatedly. Congress reversed course because it was bullied into it by the Bush Administration in the frightening weeks after the September 11 attack.

 

Bush "bullied" Congress? C'mon guys, Congress was all for the passage of this act. Many Democrats voted for these measures and claiming Bush and Ashcroft "bullied" Congress is a purely political statement. Your representatives voted for these measures. You elected your representatives.

 

Like I've said before, read history to learn about what's happening today and what's going to happen tomorrow. Passage of these kinds of laws (and event more draconian measures) is common during wartime (or have you all forgotten we are at war? Didn't the Muslim murder of school children in Russia remind you of that) and has been allowed via the Supreme Court.

 

Do your own research. A good place to start is the Annotated Constitution (includes all changes as a result of Supreme Court decisions) at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse.html

 

 

 

[materchan]

vote bush, yehawwwww

[pete280z]

1. Welcome to three years ago.

 

2. There's only one presidential candidate I can think of that is anti-"Patriot Act" as a part of his platform: http://www.badnarik.org

[Guest freedomfighter]

You have got to be kidding me. I have been in the middle, not republican and not a democrat, for all of my adult life... I have always based my opinions on careful research and facts. Cold hard facts. I have never seen, in 15 years of voting, a more obvious difference between the right decission and the wrong decission. Being in the middle really helps my perseption, it always has. I can see very clearly. Most do not.

The left has never been this desperate, and it shows. They want power and will do ANYTHING to get it. The entire left side of the debate is founded on lie after lie. They have nothing else. This has been one of the cleanest administrations in history.

The Bush administration is based on honor and integrity. Doing what's right, not always what's popular.

The only people who need to worry about the Patriot Act, are the bad guys. The opening post is the A-typical fear based B.S. that is flowing o so thickly these days. If you HONESTLY do your home work, you will find rather easily that it is an unfounded attempt at creating fear.

There is a mountain of truth and track record out there, beyond the party-line pundits. Most never take the time to go there, they just tow the line. How sad.

[Guest goldraven]

Didn't the Muslim murder of school children in Russia remind you of that) and has been allowed via the Supreme Court.

 

 

Uhhh, wasn't that chechen(sp?) rebels? Had nothing to do with muslims.

[Guest freedomfighter]

Actually, the rebels in Russia are muslim extremist

[RB26powered74zcar]

You have got to be kidding me. I have been in the middle' date=' not republican and not a democrat, for all of my adult life... I have always based my opinions on careful research and facts. Cold hard facts. I have never seen, in 15 years of voting, a more obvious difference between the right decission and the wrong decission. Being in the middle really helps my perseption, it always has. I can see very clearly. Most do not.

The left has never been this desperate, and it shows. They want power and will do ANYTHING to get it. The entire left side of the debate is founded on lie after lie. They have nothing else. This has been one of the cleanest administrations in history.

The Bush administration is based on honor and integrity. Doing what's right, not always what's popular.

The only people who need to worry about the Patriot Act, are the bad guys. The opening post is the A-typical fear based B.S. that is flowing o so thickly these days. If you HONESTLY do your home work, you will find rather easily that it is an unfounded attempt at creating fear.

There is a mountain of truth and track record out there, beyond the party-line pundits. Most never take the time to go there, they just tow the line. How sad. [/quote']

 

Amen brother... I agree.

[Guest Phil1934]

One of the cleanest in history, starting with selecting a vice-president who resided in the same state, a violation of the Constitution, then awarding Halliburton billions of dollars in contracts, while fighting all the way to the Supreme Court against any disclosure of secret meetings involving Enron, which was the biggest financial scandal of all time. There's just not enough time to document the sterling integrity of this administration, including false testimony before the U.N. I know it's been spun to death so now people say we thought they had weapons hidden, but no, we had Powell detail where and how many.

[Michael]

In the competition between safety and personal liberty, I prefer the latter. A big thank-you to the person who posted the link to the Libertarian party.

[johnc]

Had nothing to do with muslims.

 

Oh Geez! I guess I have to do some reseach for you:

 

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apeurope_story.asp?category=1103&slug=Russia%20Rebel%20Goals

 

Amazing how easily this came up in Google.

[Guest freedomfighter]

One of the cleanest in history, starting with selecting a vice-president who resided in the same state, a violation of the Constitution, then awarding Halliburton billions of dollars in contracts, while fighting all the way to the Supreme Court against any disclosure of secret meetings involving Enron, which was the biggest financial scandal of all time. There's just not enough time to document the sterling integrity of this administration, including false testimony before the U.N. I know it's been spun to death so now people say we thought they had weapons hidden, but no, we had Powell detail where and how many.

Yes, anyone with their very own brain... and the willingness to use it... will come to the same conclusion I have. Pointing to Halliburton is one of the stupidest arguments that you could possibly post. Halliburton just happens to be the world wide leader in their area of expertise. There isn't even a close second. They got the job mostly because they were the only ones who could handle it. O... and by the way... Vice President Cheney walked away from TENS of MILLIONS of DOLLARS to serve his country as VP. And yes, they fought all the way to the Supreme Court to protect the same rights that this post claims they were trying to take away. Once again facts and actions of this administration prove my point. False testimony? More of the same raging B.S. There were no lies... there was no false testimony. EVERYONE knew there were WMD... that has been proven... period. Our intelligence, England's intelligence, Russia's intelligence... have validated this issue. Not to mention the fact that WMD was only one of MANY reasons why we had to go in there and finish the job.

We are safer, the world is safer... once again, its the good ol' USA to the rescue. There has never been a better time to be proud to be an American! FREEDOM!!!

[auxilary]

Didn't the Muslim murder of school children in Russia remind you of that) and has been allowed via the Supreme Court.

 

 

Uhhh' date=' wasn't that chechen(sp?) rebels? Had nothing to do with muslims.[/quote']

uh, chechens are muslims, the terrorists who caused teh massacre were supposedly under bin laden's wing, and muslim extremists. It has always been about islam one way or another, since USSR wasn't fond of islamic religion.

[Guest Phil1934]

We won't know if Halliburton is the only company capable of driving a truck or building a road as the contracts were awarded without bids. Again it's a Texas company and both the Pres and VP are from Texas. This is why balances were written into the Constitution. What if two oil men from an oil producing state were to get elected?

WMD is getting even less press than Bin Laden. We didn't invade a country already being searched for WMD by a UN team because there were WMD. We said there ARE WMD. There aren't. End of story. All that's left is to decide who gets the spoils.

Will anyone ask questions when Russia extends its search for terrorists beyond Chechnya and into the independent Republic of Georgia? Or we will herald it as the world being safer? After all they are closer to any threatening neighbors than we are.

[JMortensen]

If Russia were to start wiping out terrorist bases in Chechnya, I would have to herald that event as the world being safer.

[johnc]

One of the cleanest in history, starting with selecting a vice-president who resided in the same state, a violation of the Constitution,

 

I wish people would actually READ the Constitution before making assertions such as the above. The issue is the 12th amendment as printed below.

 

Amendment XII - Choosing the President, Vice-President. Ratified 6/15/1804.

 

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

 

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

 

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

 

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two- thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

 

This constitutionality issue MIGHT apply to the Electors of the state of Texas but not to the Electors in the other 49 staes and the District of Columbia. This aspect of the 12th amendment has never been challenged in court and most aspects of the 12th amendment have been superceeded by the 20th.

 

And its a moot point anyway because Dick Cheney LEGALLY changed his place of residence to Wyoming before the 2000 election.

[Guest Phil1934]

Electoral college votes are no longer for each candidate, but a ticket, such as Bush/Cheney. I'm aware he changed his residence to circumvent the intent of the Constitition. As third most populous state, there were too many electoral votes to lose in TX. So it was legal, but is it right? That seems to be the theme of this administration. Bush's guard duty is in the headlines today. Same question. Halliburton contracts. Same question. I had to wade in after "The Bush administration is based on honor and integrity. Doing what's right." No, maybe what's legal.