• 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!

Patriot Act: Liberty for Security

Did you / Do you use that argument?

  • Total voters
    20
Zyphlin said:
Wow...really? Tell me this is hyperbole and you aren't being serious. You truly believe that no aspect what so ever of the Patriot Act has been used in such a way that it provided additional security for an American that would've likely not occured or occured in the same time span had PATROIT not existed?

Note, all changes by PATROIT are not 100% relegated to Terrorist activities. A large portion of the law upgraded general survellience laws found in Title III of the 1968 OMNIBUS Crime Control and Safe Street acts and in the FIS Act. Those acts didn't apply JUST to terrorists. For example, expanding wiretapping laws to expliciately state how they work with email...something previously not found in such laws....was something updated in PATRIOT.
Click to expand...

Oh, so it's okay for Congress to pass laws under false pretenses? The specific intent of the Patriot Act was to combat terrorism. That was its purpose. That it is abused and used for other things makes it worse, not better.
 
Paschendale said:
Oh, so it's okay for Congress to pass laws under false pretenses? The specific intent of the Patriot Act was to combat terrorism. That was its purpose. That it is abused and used for other things makes it worse, not better.
Click to expand...

Hey! Your rights and liberties were getting in the way of fighting terrorism. The PA was necessary to remove some of your rights and liberties in order to protect you from the big bad terrorist even though you are well more likely to come across TSA than a terrorist.
 
Paschendale said:
Oh, so it's okay for Congress to pass laws under false pretenses?
Click to expand...

Strawman. Where did I ever state or imply it is good that congress passes laws under false pretenses? What does it's pretenses have to do with whether or not it ever, in any fahsion, provided additional security for an American?
 
rathi said:
Some provisions of the PATRIOT act were useful, but not the ones that violate civil liberties.
Click to expand...

And I'd agree completely with the notion though we may quibble a bit on some of the ones violating civil liberties. I've never suggested there weren't problematic parts of the Patriot Act...and haven't suggested either way in this thread whether the whole act was bad or not.

My only quibble was with the notion that nothing in it has ever in any fashion provided any amount of security what so ever.
 
Zyphlin said:
Strawman. Where did I ever state or imply it is good that congress passes laws under false pretenses? What does it's pretenses have to do with whether or not it ever, in any fahsion, provided additional security for an American?
Click to expand...

The Patriot Act was expressly passed to combat terrorism. You said Note, all changes by PATROIT are not 100% relegated to Terrorist activities. A large portion of the law upgraded general survellience laws found in Title III of the 1968 OMNIBUS Crime Control and Safe Street acts and in the FIS Act. Those acts didn't apply JUST to terrorists. For example, expanding wiretapping laws to expliciately state how they work with email...something previously not found in such laws....was something updated in PATRIOT."

You extolled the Act because it is useful for things other than catching terrorists, even though that was the specific purpose of the act. That it has been used beyond its intended purpose is a BAD THING. We never needed any such act because terrorism has never been a problem that warrants this kind of response. But that's okay in your view because we can use it to catch copyright infringements?

Zyphlin said:
My only quibble was with the notion that nothing in it has ever in any fashion provided any amount of security what so ever.
Click to expand...

It addressed a danger that wasn't ever really there. Terrorism is a minor threat. A tiny one. We were incredibly safe from terrorism in 2000, and yes, even in 2001. 9/11 was a fluke. It could not have happened again even a week later. And we were still equally safe from it in 2002, and now in 2012. So I must ask you, security from what? From all possible dangers in the whole world? There's no way to be safe from everything in the world, even if you give up all possible liberty and just live in a box. Safety from foreign threats? We were already safe from those before the Patriot Act, and were not safer after it in any meaningful way.
 
Paschendale said:
You extolled the Act because it is useful for things other than catching terrorists, even though that was the specific purpose of the act.
Click to expand...

No, I noted that simply pointing to what it's actions in regards to security relating to terrorism is not an accurate way of determining it's effect on security in general.

That it has been used beyond its intended purpose is a BAD THING.
Click to expand...

And my comments gave no suggestion of it's "goodness" or "badness". It only spoke in terms of the notion of it's potential effect on security and the scope that effect could have.

We never needed any such act because terrorism has never been a problem that warrants this kind of response. But that's okay in your view because we can use it to catch copyright infringements?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Since you wish to continually tell me what I'm thinking in this thread, perhaps you can go ahead and continue your strawman and answer that.
 
Zyphlin said:
So, I remember it coming up often early on in the debate with the Patriot Act. I'd love to see people come down on whether or not they used this argument.

Did you/do you use the argument/thought process against the provisions of the Patriot Act that, paraphrasing, "He who gives up Liberty in exchange for Security, deserves neither"?
Click to expand...

I don't remember that far back, but I might have supported parts of it except maybe anything to do with warrantless searches. And I believe that was a huge argument, some saying it was common practice to conduct warrantless searches. Either way, whenever you give govt more authority you are reducing your own liberty.
 
Tigger said:
When one steps back and takes a look at the core principles of the major societies, cultures, and spiritual movements which humanity has brought forth in the last 4000-5000 years, you tend to find that there is not a huge amount of difference. It is those commonalities in the vast majority of those institutions which forms Universal Morality, Ikari.
Click to expand...
Morality varies from culture to culture.

As arbiter of morality in charge of deciding what Tigger needs to do to be moral, upright, and good, I dictate that he live in a matriarchal society.

Since he doesn't value liberty, he must then subject himself to my moral arbitration or be deemed an evil person.

As for me, I like making my own decisions.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Morality varies from culture to culture.

As arbiter of morality in charge of deciding what Tigger needs to do to be moral, upright, and good, I dictate that he live in a matriarchal society.

Since he doesn't value liberty, he must then subject himself to my moral arbitration or be deemed an evil person.
Click to expand...

The specifics may vary, but the core of almost all major cultures is the same.

I have no problem being deemed an evil person (I already am by many); but I'd be called something else in that case...... DEAD.
 
Thunder said:
we live in a society.

that means we find a balance between Freedoms & Security.

I think the USA, as of right now, is at a good balance.

sure, we could tweek our freedoms a little so we had more. But we also could tweek our security requirements so we'd be a little safer.

Ben Franklin was WRONG, when he suggested that those who sacrifice some liberty for some security, deserve neither.

this is what an intelligent modern society does.
Click to expand...


A good balance?...!...? Name one threat to us that deserves the degradation of our Liberty?

The false flag of security only brings us closer to a police state which would bring us neither liberty or security. It would only bring us oppression.
 
Last edited:
OnWisconsin said:
A good balance?...!...? Name one threat to us that deserves the degradation of our Liberty?

The false flag of security only brings us closer to a police state which would bring us neither liberty or security. It would only bring us oppression.
Click to expand...

good old human stupidity and greed. hence the need for regulations on the private sector. its not worth the increase in liberty to have to go back to the days where people were dying for things like a 40 hour work week and basic job safety.
 
OnWisconsin said:
A good balance?...!...? Name one threat to us that deserves the degradation of our Liberty?

The false flag of security only brings us closer to a police state which would bring us neither liberty or security. It would only bring us oppression.
Click to expand...

What brings us closer to a police state (which I wouldn't totally disagree with) is the fact that the population at large no longer respects or even pays lip service to following the rules and/or maintaining order in society.
 
Tigger said:
The specifics may vary, but the core of almost all major cultures is the same.

I have no problem being deemed an evil person (I already am by many); but I'd be called something else in that case...... DEAD.
Click to expand...

Why would you be dead?
The High priestess would take good care of you.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Why would you be dead?
The High priestess would take good care of you.
Click to expand...

When one cannot live by the rules, it's best off to remove themselves from the equation entirely.
 
Tigger said:
When one cannot live by the rules, it's best off to remove themselves from the equation entirely.
Click to expand...

or perhaps just live without unnecessary rules. That would be my choice, as opposed to suicide.

Silly libertarian me.
 
Zyphlin said:
So, I remember it coming up often early on in the debate with the Patriot Act. I'd love to see people come down on whether or not they used this argument.

Did you/do you use the argument/thought process against the provisions of the Patriot Act that, paraphrasing, "He who gives up Liberty in exchange for Security, deserves neither"?
Click to expand...
I've heard those types of arguments, but never a convincing one. I still haven't figured out specifically what provision(s) in the Patriot Act sacrifice my liberty.

I kinda think the provision(s) that allegedly sacrifice my liberty simply don't exist.
 
Last edited:
The Patriot Act is shameful. I opposed it from the start.
 
IndieVisible said:
The Patriot Act is shameful. I opposed it from the start.
Click to expand...

So I can assume that you put the Rights of people who want to kill you above your own safety, correct?
 
IndieVisible said:
You would be wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't see any other reason why one would oppose the Patriot Act. Care to let me know why you're against giving LEOs the ability to do what's necessary to fight crime? Hell, it didn't go anywhere near far enough so far as I'm concerned.
 
Tigger said:
I don't see any other reason why one would oppose the Patriot Act. Care to let me know why you're against giving LEOs the ability to do what's necessary to fight crime? Hell, it didn't go anywhere near far enough so far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's a matter of watching this nation drift towards a police state. Most of us would oppose such a trend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom