The thing is, it's not just that the Patriot Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President (which it *was*), it's also that it's been three years and there have been several court challenges against various aspects of it. Some of those nuances have been changed, others have stood the test of being constitutional. It's just not reasonable to talk about the law like it's a wholesale mega-assault on our rights. That kind of stuff is exciting to scream about on/. forums, but it's not reality. It's a good law, and we're a safer country because of it.
you have gone OOOOON and OOOOOON about the Patriot Act being unconstitutional, but I say again to you that it was enacted by our elected Congress, signed into law by our elected President, and has survived or been modified in response to numerous Supreme Court challenges. Whatever is still in effect as the Patriot Act is good, solid, law. There will probably be tweaks here and there over the years, but by and large it is good, safe, Constitutional Law.
Well, let me say that discourse with you is certainly an experience in intelligent discussion. For my part, I won't be rude to you.
Now, regarding the Patriot Act... it is in effect. It has been enacted by our elected congress and signed into law by our elected President. Years after this was done, the American people had a chance to vote those people out of office - but instead they elected them with even bigger margins than before!
The Patriot Act has met and survived some court challenges, and failed others. Which means that overall, whatever we still have in place as the Patriot Act is Constitutional. There are surely a few fringe issues here and there, and they will be worked out. But, as a whole, the Patriot Act is constitutional. The anti-Bush brigade is jeopardizing our safety so they can score some political points. People see through it. This is why the anti-Patriot Act brigade lost the recent elections - and why they will continue to lose more elections if they want to keep being weak on security and attacking a perfectly valid bill.
Apparently you are the brainwashed one, because all I'm saying is that the Patriot Act was voted into law by our elected congress, signed into law by our elected president, and then reviewed and approved by our Supreme Court after a few modifications. You are the one who, in the face of all that, is still shouting about it being unconstitutional.
oh well. The Patriot Act was voted into law by our elected congress, and it was reviewed and slightly modified by the Supreme Court. It's a legal, valid law. if you really support the constitution, then you would listen to the supreme court already and accept the Patriot Act as the law of the land. It's been years already, and aside from changing a few provision the Patriot Act is still in effect, and will be into the future. This criticism of the Patriot Act is the usual type of anti-American Democrat propaganda. This kind of rhetoric is why they lost the election.
Re: Abu Gharib, yes it was prisoner abuse, and the level of abuse was no more severe than college hazing. That's all I'm saying. i agree with you though, it's amazing people mix it up into the same conversation.
Re: Rights written into the Constitution being taken away...
We have a Supreme Court in America. They have already fine tuned a few sections of the Patriot Act. If the rest of the Patriot Act is still in effect, then apparently it passed the test of the Supreme Court. Therefore, if people still insist on going around calling the Patriot Act unconstitutional, then they are the ones who are making up things about the constitution. It was voted into effect by our elected representatives. It was reviewed and approved by the Supreme Court. Yes there are a few ongoing issues in terms of judicial review, but the act as a whole has passed the muster of the Supreme Court and will remain in effect. To say otherwise is to do nothing more than hold on to an anti-Bush administration point of view and to unfairly latch on to the Patriot Act as a way to criticize Bush.
I don't have to look at what Richard Clarke says. I can look at the fact that we've had no more planes flying into American buildings. I can see that the Taliban which hosted Al-Qaeda has now been removed from power. I can see Saddam Hussein who once paid Hezbollah terrorists to bomb innocent Israeli buses is now in prison. You think I care what some Richard Clarke says? No. I care about REALITY.
You start off your reply by claiming that I am making a mountain out of a molehill by mentioning the Sept. 11 attacks. BUT you end your reply by doing the same thing by citing the Abu Gharib abuse.
* For one thing, I resent you belittling the tragedy of the 3,000 innocent people murdered on 9/11.
* For another thing, I am continuously amazed at the attention Abu Gharib gets. Go look at the pictures. At most it amounts to a severe case of college hazing. (Now go to Michael Savage's site and look at videos of what the terrorists do to THEIR prisoners. They do things like sawing off their prisoner's heads while recording their last gurgling scream.
Yes, it is good that so far, we've only lost 3,000 victims to terrorism on 9/11. People like John Ashcroft are working to make sure we don't lose 30,000 in wave after wave of attacks. If you want to leave us defenseless to terrorism, you are free to have that view. Normal Americans disagree and that's why people like you who don't think we are in danger from terrorists lost the last election.
"in some cases" you said.
So it's not a blanket ending of judicial oversight. It is something done in "some" cases.
If you think September 11 was fun, good! Then you should be against changes in our laws to help prevent more terror. Go ahead and fight the Patriot Act. Nothing could make the terrorists happier than having Americans like you on their side.
Now let's examine your statement: "the FBI no longer need search warrants"
That is a false statement. You know perfectly well the FBI still needs to seek search warrants. So what are you here to do? Make false claims or get at the truth?
This guy should get a medal of honor. In the face of all the fake Michael Moore type attacks and Dan Rather slanted news stories, he just kept on quietly and persistently doing his job. We are a safer, better nation because of him. God bless you Mr. Ashcroft.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing is, it's not just that the Patriot Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President (which it *was*), it's also that it's been three years and there have been several court challenges against various aspects of it. Some of those nuances have been changed, others have stood the test of being constitutional. It's just not reasonable to talk about the law like it's a wholesale mega-assault on our rights. That kind of stuff is exciting to scream about on /. forums, but it's not reality. It's a good law, and we're a safer country because of it.
you have gone OOOOON and OOOOOON about the Patriot Act being unconstitutional, but I say again to you that it was enacted by our elected Congress, signed into law by our elected President, and has survived or been modified in response to numerous Supreme Court challenges. Whatever is still in effect as the Patriot Act is good, solid, law. There will probably be tweaks here and there over the years, but by and large it is good, safe, Constitutional Law.
My name's not Jesus.
Well, let me say that discourse with you is certainly an experience in intelligent discussion. For my part, I won't be rude to you.
Now, regarding the Patriot Act... it is in effect. It has been enacted by our elected congress and signed into law by our elected President. Years after this was done, the American people had a chance to vote those people out of office - but instead they elected them with even bigger margins than before!
The Patriot Act has met and survived some court challenges, and failed others. Which means that overall, whatever we still have in place as the Patriot Act is Constitutional. There are surely a few fringe issues here and there, and they will be worked out. But, as a whole, the Patriot Act is constitutional. The anti-Bush brigade is jeopardizing our safety so they can score some political points. People see through it. This is why the anti-Patriot Act brigade lost the recent elections - and why they will continue to lose more elections if they want to keep being weak on security and attacking a perfectly valid bill.
Apparently you are the brainwashed one, because all I'm saying is that the Patriot Act was voted into law by our elected congress, signed into law by our elected president, and then reviewed and approved by our Supreme Court after a few modifications. You are the one who, in the face of all that, is still shouting about it being unconstitutional.
oh well. The Patriot Act was voted into law by our elected congress, and it was reviewed and slightly modified by the Supreme Court. It's a legal, valid law. if you really support the constitution, then you would listen to the supreme court already and accept the Patriot Act as the law of the land. It's been years already, and aside from changing a few provision the Patriot Act is still in effect, and will be into the future. This criticism of the Patriot Act is the usual type of anti-American Democrat propaganda. This kind of rhetoric is why they lost the election.
Re: Rights written into the Constitution being taken away...
We have a Supreme Court in America. They have already fine tuned a few sections of the Patriot Act. If the rest of the Patriot Act is still in effect, then apparently it passed the test of the Supreme Court. Therefore, if people still insist on going around calling the Patriot Act unconstitutional, then they are the ones who are making up things about the constitution. It was voted into effect by our elected representatives. It was reviewed and approved by the Supreme Court. Yes there are a few ongoing issues in terms of judicial review, but the act as a whole has passed the muster of the Supreme Court and will remain in effect. To say otherwise is to do nothing more than hold on to an anti-Bush administration point of view and to unfairly latch on to the Patriot Act as a way to criticize Bush.
I don't have to look at what Richard Clarke says. I can look at the fact that we've had no more planes flying into American buildings. I can see that the Taliban which hosted Al-Qaeda has now been removed from power. I can see Saddam Hussein who once paid Hezbollah terrorists to bomb innocent Israeli buses is now in prison. You think I care what some Richard Clarke says? No. I care about REALITY.
You start off your reply by claiming that I am making a mountain out of a molehill by mentioning the Sept. 11 attacks. BUT you end your reply by doing the same thing by citing the Abu Gharib abuse. * For one thing, I resent you belittling the tragedy of the 3,000 innocent people murdered on 9/11. * For another thing, I am continuously amazed at the attention Abu Gharib gets. Go look at the pictures. At most it amounts to a severe case of college hazing. (Now go to Michael Savage's site and look at videos of what the terrorists do to THEIR prisoners. They do things like sawing off their prisoner's heads while recording their last gurgling scream. Yes, it is good that so far, we've only lost 3,000 victims to terrorism on 9/11. People like John Ashcroft are working to make sure we don't lose 30,000 in wave after wave of attacks. If you want to leave us defenseless to terrorism, you are free to have that view. Normal Americans disagree and that's why people like you who don't think we are in danger from terrorists lost the last election.
If you think September 11 was fun, good! Then you should be against changes in our laws to help prevent more terror. Go ahead and fight the Patriot Act. Nothing could make the terrorists happier than having Americans like you on their side.
You are detached from reality. I don't know whose propaganda you've been listening to, but search warrants have not been done away with.
Now let's examine your statement: "the FBI no longer need search warrants" That is a false statement. You know perfectly well the FBI still needs to seek search warrants. So what are you here to do? Make false claims or get at the truth?
by the way, just for clarifying: I think it would be GREAT for Ashcroft to be on the Supreme Court
dude! you are SO right. I think he feels a little worn out from his previous job, but yeah... awww man. Nice observation.
This guy should get a medal of honor. In the face of all the fake Michael Moore type attacks and Dan Rather slanted news stories, he just kept on quietly and persistently doing his job. We are a safer, better nation because of him. God bless you Mr. Ashcroft.