A simple question for Republicans... - Page 2

LennyD · 08-13-08, 06:03 AM

Is there a simple fix to making the Patriot Act more Patriotic?

This is one tricky subject every time I have seen it discussed.

I can sympathize with those who prefer injury or worse to giving up their freedoms and for good reason. We have not seen an increase in freedoms and any additional restriction or elimination should be cause for concern.

On the other hand there is a real need for protecting the US from future attacks.

Problem is that due to history many US citizens do not fully believe that these powers will not be abused (and if we consider the use misuse of homeland security dollars it is easy to see how things do not go as originally reported) and some actions are already being questioned.

Would it be a simple fix to just make a change that would cause US citizens to be immune to this act?

I mean it was designed to combat foreign based terrorists who are looking to attack US targets and not to spy on or take away the rights of US citizens!!

Could eliminating the very people it is supposed to protect from its grip make it right, or more acceptable?

LennyD · 08-13-08, 06:08 AM

Oh I guess I should add that my opinion may be slightly biased due to the state I live in seeing its gay governor appoint his lover as state director of homeland security who was also believed by some to be a foreign spy.

And since I mentioned it I have to ask when was the last time you saw any country refer to "homeland" in such a way?

DarkWizard12 · 08-13-08, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LennyD

Oh I guess I should add that my opinion may be slightly biased due to the state I live in seeing its gay governor appoint his lover as state director of homeland security who was also believed by some to be a foreign spy.

And since I mentioned it I have to ask when was the last time you saw any country refer to "homeland" in such a way?

well, if he's a foreign spy, I'm sure he'll keep his homeland secure

bhkad · 08-13-08, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LennyD

Is there a simple fix to making the Patriot Act more Patriotic?

This is one tricky subject every time I have seen it discussed.

I can sympathize with those who prefer injury or worse to giving up their freedoms and for good reason. We have not seen an increase in freedoms and any additional restriction or elimination should be cause for concern.

On the other hand there is a real need for protecting the US from future attacks.

Problem is that due to history many US citizens do not fully believe that these powers will not be abused (and if we consider the use misuse of homeland security dollars it is easy to see how things do not go as originally reported) and some actions are already being questioned.

Would it be a simple fix to just make a change that would cause US citizens to be immune to this act?

I mean it was designed to combat foreign based terrorists who are looking to attack US targets and not to spy on or take away the rights of US citizens!!

Could eliminating the very people it is supposed to protect from its grip make it right, or more acceptable?

Is it a coincidence that I quoted former House Speaker Newt Gingrich in this regard earlier in this thread (and days ago) from his comments made at a book signing aired on C-Span and now your comments send me back to that very same program?

I like his solution.

Quote:

Q: What do you attribute to the fact that we have not been hit since 9/11?

NG: Why have we not been hit since 9/11, which is a good question. My first answer is I honestly don’t know. I would have expected another attack and I particularly thought, I was very, very worried and I talked to the administration when we had the sniper attacks.

Because the sniper attacks were psychologically so frightening to the average person because of their randomness that I was amazed that the bad guys didn’t figure out how to send 10 or 12 sniper teams.

I think there are couple of things though that we tend, which is one of the great tragedies of the Bush administration, the more successful they’ve been at intercepting and stopping bad guys the less proof there is that we’re in danger and therefore the better they’ve done at making sure there isn’t an attack, the easier it is to say well there was never going to be an attack anyway.

And it’s almost like they should every once in a while allowed an attack to get through just to remind us. Think about it; think about the psychology why did we wrap up so many people, well we wire-tapped.

And again, I’m going to be a little controversial, I would divide the FBI into two agencies. I would have an anti-domestic crime FBI which was very cautious, very respectful of civil liberties; you are innocent until proven guilty. And I would have a small but very aggressive anti-terrorism agency and I would frankly give them extraordinary ability to ease drop.

And my first advice to civil libertarians is simple, don’t plot with terrorists. Because the only information that I would allow to be admissible by this agency would be information that was related to terrorism, but if you ask me am I prepared to be very aggressive in order to avoid a nuclear weapon going off in New York or a biological weapon going off in Boston, my answer is yeah.

I think that it is very important that we recognize the nature of the modern world; we recognize how sophisticated some of our opponents are getting and we stay ahead of them with a relentless intensity which I do not want to see any domestic police department have.

Because I think your liberties in a domestic setting are paramount I would rather risk crime, than risk losing my civil liberties, but I would not rather risk a nuclear weapon and I think its very important. And I think the greatest danger to our liberty is to actually have the country end up in the kind of attack that would lead us to favor a dictatorship for security.

And the history of human beings is simple, human beings do not like living in periods where they are deeply threatened. And if the democracy can’t protect them they will shift towards a dictatorship. So I want a democracy which is very protective of your civil liberties for crime and very relentless in pursing terrorists to protect you from terrorism.

And I think candidly the Bush administration, despite all the attacks on it and the mistakes made, I certainly disagree with how they handled Iraq after the first campaign was brilliant. And I thought had they listened carefully to Ambassador Khalilzad and General Petraeus in 2003 we frankly would have probably won the war and been over a long time ago.

But having said that on the stopping terrorism front someday 50 years from now somebody will have access to the documents and will write a history that will show that George W. Bush did a lot more to protect this country successfully than anybody knows at the present time. Thank you all very much, let’s sign books.

Book TV on CSPAN 2 Interview > Newt.org > Newt News and Opinion DB

LennyD · 08-13-08, 11:35 PM

Wow maybe Newt is smarter than he is pretty

His idea could work well as long as the following was not misunderstood, misused, or abused.

Quote:

Because the only information that I would allow to be admissible by this agency would be information that was related to terrorism

Otherwise we would have to have Stewie get em with his Laser gun

bhkad · 08-13-08, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LennyD

Wow maybe Newt is smarter than he is pretty

His idea could work well as long as the following was not misunderstood, misused, or abused.

Otherwise we would have to have Stewie get em with his Laser gun

By the way, I just spotted a misspelling from his comments.

I would divide the FBI into two agencies. I would have an anti-domestic crime FBI which was very cautious, very respectful of civil liberties; you are innocent until proven guilty. And I would have a small but very aggressive anti-terrorism agency and I would frankly give them extraordinary ability to ease drop.

I think that should be "EAVESDROP."

ATM · 08-15-08, 05:17 PM

just a thought:

"those who give up necessary liberty to buy temporary security, deserve neither security nor liberty"

LennyD · 08-17-08, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATM

just a thought:

"those who give up necessary liberty to buy temporary security, deserve neither security nor liberty"

Have to agree with that.

What do those who would drag us into socialism deserve?

phrank · 08-19-08, 04:35 PM

Something to consider. Had this been into effect before 9-11 do you think we could have saved 3,000 American lives? I do.

Do you really think Bush wants to listen in on your phone calls? Nope, not unless you are a known terrorist acting as a sleeper. This is what this is designed for but because our Democrats want us to all be so PC, it has to appear that it is for everyone. Think about it. Do you really think our governement wants to know that your wife wants you to remember to pick up bread on your way home.

LennyD · 08-19-08, 11:43 PM

Is there any chance we could all agree that PC on its own is not only wrong, but limiting our freedoms as much or more than anything else?

Also as much as I hate to admit it I honestly do not believe that if there was any act in place before 9/11 (including the patriot act) that there would have been any different outcome.

Reason being simply that if no one was taking any of the previous threats seriously as it seems was the situation anyhow why would they be listening to anyone!

One other question is that just who believes that GWB is either listening to anything, or even directly responsible for the act in the first place. I surely do not.