• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you support the Patriot Act?

Do you support the Patriot Act?

  • Yes, it helps secure our country from terror

    Votes: 1 4.0%
  • No, it directly violates our rights and should be abolished

    Votes: 23 92.0%
  • At first I supported it, but it is no longer needed at this time

    Votes: 1 4.0%
  • Other (state opinion below)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    25
Joined
Jan 15, 2012
Messages
192
Reaction score
113
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
With the end of the Iraq war and the Afghanistan War winding down do you believe that the Patriot Act which allows wire tapping and other unconventional methods to try to catch terrorists should still be allowed, or should it be completely abolished as it directly violates the 4th ammendment and other rights. Do you believe that we should give that freedom up for security or do you believe that if we do we deserve neither as Ben Franklin once said.

Personally I think that the act hasn't done much good over all and we've had more success with military operations over seas then catching any terrorists here at home. I also believe that this is the same as people trying to get rid of guns thinking that they will be safe, instead it just gets rid of freedom and violates our constitution. I think this act should be abolished as soon as possible, sadly I think people will just accept their loss of freedom.
 
The name of the bill probably had more to do with its acceptance than the actual content. It was a reactionary, if not opportunistic power grab that should have never been supported at the offset.
 
I don't support it, as it was written and passed during a period of national emotional vulnerability, and it (imo) violates our privacy rights.
 
The name of the bill probably had more to do with its acceptance than the actual content. It was a reactionary, if not opportunistic power grab that should have never been supported at the offset.


Yeah, the Dem should take note. Just rename environmental and gun regs with the words Liberty, Freedom, and Protection of Life.
 
I've always hated this piece of legislation for the simple fact that we the people can be excellent whistle blowers, in our own right. There's nothing wrong with a little neighborly profiling when lives are potentially at stake.
 
The name of the bill probably had more to do with its acceptance than the actual content. It was a reactionary, if not opportunistic power grab that should have never been supported at the offset.
Exactly. Reactionary legislation almost always results in unintended consequences. Although this time I question whether they really were truly unintended.

I also believe most of it is/was unnecessary as we already had the capability to do most of what it purports to do anyway
 
The Patriot Act is a pure power trip! We do not need the ability to lock up people for no good reason and not tell them why or when they can be released. What are we completely heartless! Have we no compassion for our enemies. What's the point of having "due process!?" Besides do you have any idea what someone could do to the American people if it got in the wrong hands. They could lock up anyone they want!
 
I think most American agree the Patriot Act is an unnecessary infringement on citizens rights. Unfortunately, all the presidential candidates except Ron Paul, support it.

The little bit of opposition we have in Congress is coming from Democrats.

"The Republican House and Democratic Senate leadership are backing a deal to extend three of the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act, and the Senate voted 74-8 for cloture (to limit debate before passage) on the bill May 23. The vote was not a surprise to political observers, who expect a closer vote in the House of Representatives.

The Republican and Democratic ranks of the House have demonstrated some reluctance to pass the bill, however. A majority of Democrats voted against renewal February 17. And Felicia Sonmez of the Washington Post explained May 20 that "House Republicans, meanwhile, have their own problem to worry about — the more than two dozen members who voted against the extension this year. House Republicans have a 22-seat majority in the House, meaning if the members who voted against the earlier Patriot Act extensions maintain their opposition, Republican leaders will need the support of Democrats to pass the bill." Only two Republicans in the Senate — Kentucky's Rand Paul and Utah's Mike Lee, both Tea Party affiliates — opposed the Patriot act extension in the Senate in a February 15 vote earlier this year."
Congressional Leaders Agree to Renew Patriot Act
 
Last edited:
I think most American agree the Patriot Act is an unnecessary infringement on citizens rights.
I tend to agree with this, but then again most Americans seem receptive to "tough on crime" and apply that to terrorism, as well.
 
Compared to other historical examples where security sublimates privacy, it is comparatively minor. Middle state representative who might vote to join the Confederacy? Go to jail. Protesting America's entry into WWI and global affairs? Go to jail. Manufacture and sell alcohol? Go to jail. Might be a communist or just annoy someone too powerful? Career ruining public spectacle and drawn out bureaucratic nightmare, possibly followed by going to jail.

Also theoretically the Alien and Sedition Acts, the supervision of the institution of slavery in the South, etc.

Factoring in the threats it was meant to respond to, I don't consider the Patriot Act to be a totally unreasonable piece of legislation.
 
Last edited:
Not in the least. Hell, even the name is propaganda to try to get people to not think about the powers government was grabbing. It's a travesty of a law and only serves to make us less free.
 
I tend to agree with this, but then again most Americans seem receptive to "tough on crime" and apply that to terrorism, as well.

Good point.............!
 
With the end of the Iraq war and the Afghanistan War winding down do you believe that the Patriot Act which allows wire tapping and other unconventional methods to try to catch terrorists should still be allowed, or should it be completely abolished as it directly violates the 4th ammendment and other rights. Do you believe that we should give that freedom up for security or do you believe that if we do we deserve neither as Ben Franklin once said.

First, Ben Franklin's REAL quote does not so easily apply to the PATRIOT Act in a cut and dry, no debate manner, as Ben talks about ESSENTIAL liberty for TEMPORARY security deserve neither. If Ben Franklin's quote actually was what it so often is paraphrased as one would have to suggest that Franklin believes that none of us should have any freedom since we give it up each and every day through virtue of having a police force and laws.

Second, I do support the Patriot Act. I do not support all the portions and provisions within the bill, however I believe that the many mechanisms we have within our system....built in sunsets, the ability for the legislature to erase provisions, and the ability for the courts to strike down provisions...will cause most of those provisions to go the way side over time as they become less of a necessity with regards to the public desire for security over government intervention. I believe the vast majority of the Patriot Act is not only sound, but essential, legislation that updates our intelligence laws in a way that brings them in touch with modern technology. The notion of having Intelligence Law built around the way the world worked technologically with regards to communication in 1960s and 70s when the notion of the Web 2.0, smart phones, text messages, and other such things was science fiction if the thoughts existed at all. And while its all well and good to say "Just overturn it then pass that on its own merit" I simply don't think its practical nor reasonable in the highly politicized time we live in for that to happen if for no other reason than the largely misinformed stereotype the public now has to the notion of th Patriot Act. If you're going to overturn the Patriot Act without overturning FISA or Title 3 of the 1968 Omnibus Crime Crontrol and Safe Street Acts then you're essentially going out of your way to not really significantly increase freedom but to drag the government back into the realm of using loopholes and grey areas with regards to technology and survelliance.

The Patriot Act was nothing new for the US; throughout this countries history we've routinely had Presidents act in the name of security rather than unobtrusiveness of government. FDR and his internment camps, Lincoln and his suspension of habeus corpus, etc. Each time we move away from the point that tips the balance in favor of security slowly and with the various measures that were put in place being scaled back. The same has been happening with the Patriot Act and will continue to happen with it. As such I see no reason why we should take a chainsaw to something that would be better served using a scapel.

Public opinion about it will continue to drop, political opinion on it will continue to drop, and over time the extensions of various provisions will cease and they will sail into the sunset. I absolutely support that happening. I support the court rulings by and large that overturn various parts of it. I in general support stripping away at the Patriot Act. I simply don't support the wholeseale removal of it.
 
Last edited:
Not only did I support it at the time, but I still support it, and would in fact support expanding its powers.
 
But do you actually believe the act has done much good here at home and what would you expand in it Tigger? Don't you think our military operations over seas seem to have done a much better job in catching and preventing terrorism where this act has really done nothing but strip us of freedom?
 
To be quite honest unless any of us are part of the intelligence field we likely have a passing understanding, at best, of what effect the Patriot Act has had in regards to combatting terrorism and other crimes. And unless we're deeply intrenched in such a community we probalby don't have a full understanding of its ramafications domestically...and someone in such a position isn't going to be posting about it here on some random online forum. Not to mention that with the mammoth of a bill that is the Patriot Act and the wide reach it has, mixed with peoples misunderstanding of it at times, there's a good chance even those that utilize it may not be aware they're using it or that they may think they're using it when in actuality they're utilizing things set down in other laws all together.
 
But do you actually believe the act has done much good here at home and what would you expand in it Tigger? Don't you think our military operations over seas seem to have done a much better job in catching and preventing terrorism where this act has really done nothing but strip us of freedom?

A couple things to note, Justice.... I'm an Authoritarian. Freedom and Liberty are PRIVILEGES in my mind, not Rights; and definitely not things that should be extended to any non-citizen here in the United States. I would expand it to ensure that we know where every non-citizen in the US is on a daily basis, electroncially. I believe we need to SECURE both our land borders and to patrol our sea and air borders with more military and less civilian power.
 
Back
Top Bottom