Obama seeks to extend Patriot Act provisions

[nyker96]

It's another version of Obamacare. Embrace it Dems.


Get rid of the whole crappy thing and create a new bill which is specific and can withstand scrutiny from a Constitutional perspective, not a creative "the Constitution is a living document and we can interpret it as we want" one.

It's always been Bush's baby the Patriot Act. How has it become something belonging to Dems? If anything, it's Republicans who should embrace this much more than Dems.

 

[xj0hnx]

It's always been Bush's baby the Patriot Act. How has it become something belonging to Dems? If anything, it's Republicans who should embrace this much more than Dems.

In case you missed it, Bush isn't president anymore, Obama is, and like any political figure he loves the power left to him by his predecessor.

 

[Scotteq]

It's always been Bush's baby the Patriot Act. How has it become something belonging to Dems? If anything, it's Republicans who should embrace this much more than Dems.

Repubs do embrace it more fully than Dems - But know that there are plenty of Dems who have also embraced it, and that without Democratic Support it never would have become law in the first place. Let alone be extended. Or extended again...

 

[xj0hnx]

Repubs do embrace it more fully than Dems - But know that there are plenty of Dems who have also embraced it, and that without Democratic Support it never would have become law in the first place. Let alone be extended. Or extended again...

Yip, while Republicans may have the lead on The Patriot Act™, the Democrats could have tried to stop it, and irregardless of the many revisionist the Democrats at the time were voting right along with BushCo™ 98-1 was it?

 

[Scotteq]

Yip, while Republicans may have the lead on The Patriot Act™, the Democrats could have tried to stop it, and irregardless of the many revisionist the Democrats at the time were voting right along with BushCo™ 98-1 was it?

The original senate vote was 98-1, with 1 not voting.

 

[werepossum]

No, it's more propaganda to fuel the anti-government agenda and paranoia of the right.

Like any good propaganda, there's some truth to it. Clearly, when government - but the part you leave out, not just government but any organization - is given a power, things tend to 'shift' so that there's an inertia for it to retain it, harder to take it away now that it has it.

But you said 'a power given is retained forever'. Is that true, or it is an exaggeration of the truth to fit your ideology?

Can John Adams' power to imprison critics of the government still be used?

Can FDR's power to run for re-election as President indefinitely still be used?

Can JFK's power to appoint his own brother and campaign manager as the Attorney General still be done?

Can Abraham Lincon's power to suspend Habeus Corpus, to shut down newspapers, still be used?

Can FDR's power to imprison American citizens of Japanese ancestry still be done?

Can the government's power to wipe out millions of inconvenient natives in a genocide, burning villages of men, women and children as one method, still be done?

Can the government still pass laws based on segregation, tell blacks to ride the back of the buss, not to swim in a 'white' pool, which drinking fountain to use?

Can the government still have legal slavery in some states?

Can the government still arrest people and interrogate them without reading them their rights?

Can the government still prevent women from voting? Can state governments still have laws to block blacks from voting?

Can the government still imprison any citizen for speaking against a war, as it imprisoned presidential candidate Eugene Debbs for years over the US in WWI?

These are just a few of the powers government had at some point and now, constitutionally, legally, and/or practically, no longer has.

The statement was false - it was propaganda.

By the way, the last one is a trick question. The answer is yes - it just doesn't exercise the power, but it's still on the books if it wanted to.

A citizen speaking out against a war violates the law.

The Patriot Act DOES have some truth to it about being difficult to remove now that it's enacted, as an act rushed through in the panicky days after 9/11, the authoritarian interests grabbing the chance. But the exaggerated statement that 'the government never has any power removed' is wrong - telling people to oppose ANY new power, basically.

That would have led to opposing the Social Security Act which is the most popular government program ever passed and has huge eliminated elder poverty, to the government protecting food and drug safety, to the government even providing public schools and libraries, and much more - things some crazies might say they're happy not to have, but most Americans are glad to have.

On the other hand, FDR did NOT want the Pentagon he approved to be a permanent building, concerned it would give too much power to the military to pressure Congress for its interests; Truman did NOT want the CIA he created to become a massive COVERT OPERATION organization violating American values, and so on.

Point taken. A power granted to government doesn't HAVE to be retained, but can be revoked if the need exists AND good people take action.

 

[nyker96]

In case you missed it, Bush isn't president anymore, Obama is, and like any political figure he loves the power left to him by his predecessor.

Repubs do embrace it more fully than Dems - But know that there are plenty of Dems who have also embraced it, and that without Democratic Support it never would have become law in the first place. Let alone be extended. Or extended again...

I can't say if it's constitutional to holding on to some "extra" power but if I am the Prez I'd hold down to it too! If you are the Prez, I'd say you 'd probably do the same, who wouldn't?

But seriously, most Rep probably against it now because there's a Dem who is prez, if it's a Rep president I guess the Dem will be against renewing it and Rep will be all over it. I mean it's just the usual rooting for your own guy.

 

[Scotteq]

But seriously, most Rep probably against it now because there's a Dem who is prez, if it's a Rep president I guess the Dem will be against renewing it and Rep will be all over it. I mean it's just the usual rooting for your own guy.

I can understand it in the context of "OMG, Those Baztardz Just Destroyed The Twin Towerz"... But 10 years after the fact, I would have hoped all of those hard working, dedicated, and wonderfully intelligent people in Washington would have come up with a new and improved version which manages to accomplish the intent, without turning civil & privacy protections into some bureaucratic version of toilet paper...