Peter King and Ed Koch on Patriot Act

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Corn
I guess my real issue is that "could" is neither an event, nor a fact. A billion things in this would could cause something bad to happen, either to one person, or a whole lot of them. Do we ban everything that could bring harm, simply because it could?

Do I believe that Bush is a pure as the driven snow? Of course not, but I don't believe that he is evil incarnate either. I believe that he is honest in his desire to safeguard our country. I don't, not for a second, believe that anyone is "pulling his strings". Is he infallable? Not hardly, he's a regular guy in an extraordinary position, he's gonna make mistakes. Do we revoke his presidency simply because he could make a mistake?

There is not a single person alive, nor law enacted, that could live up to the scrutiny of "could".

It's not Bush who concerns me, it's his underlings like Wolfowitz and Asscrack. I believe that the Neocons are as nefarious as you can get. I also believe that they have his ear and he refers to them exclusively when it comes to National Security and Foriegn Affairs. If he were to sh!tcan them all I wouldn't mind voting for him myself! I can assure you that if John McCain were President none of them would be in a position of power.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Corn

Hey Moonie, you get a batch of bad acid?

Eh? He's simply relishing his well known role as our sarcastic elitist saviour. Ironically enough, he's still just as bad as the rest of us. He's learned nothing from his "better way". His feigned sarcasm is merely an insult meant to massage the hurt of feeling worthless that he struggles with.

Well I remember when his sarcasm actually was on the mark and rather humorous. Unfortunately it's just a shell of it's former self, as if someone else has taken over his account. I like Moonie, I really do. But lately he has become the "MrPalco" of the left!

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Corn
I guess my real issue is that "could" is neither an event, nor a fact. A billion things in this would could cause something bad to happen, either to one person, or a whole lot of them. Do we ban everything that could bring harm, simply because it could?

Do I believe that Bush is a pure as the driven snow? Of course not, but I don't believe that he is evil incarnate either. I believe that he is honest in his desire to safeguard our country. I don't, not for a second, believe that anyone is "pulling his strings". Is he infallable? Not hardly, he's a regular guy in an extraordinary position, he's gonna make mistakes. Do we revoke his presidency simply because he could make a mistake?

There is not a single person alive, nor law enacted, that could live up to the scrutiny of "could".

It's not Bush who concerns me, it's his underlings like Wolfowitz and Asscrack. I believe that the Neocons are as nefarious as you can get. I also believe that they have his ear and he refers to them exclusively when it comes to National Security and Foriegn Affairs. If he were to sh!tcan them all I wouldn't mind voting for him myself! I can assure you that if John McCain were President none of them would be in a position of power.

The Supreme Coup didn't pick McCain. Get over it.

 

[Moonbeam]

But lately he has become the "MrPalco" of the left!

There is nothing on the left that isn't on the right. The answer is a third way, in the integration of opposites.

 

[miguel]

Well, I myself hijacked other threads. I guess this thread deserved that fate too...

 

[Moonbeam]

That's what happens when one becomes a mere form of one's shadowy self.

And don't forget, when anything heads in the direction of truth it's clled a hijack. If truth were in an expected direction, everybody would find it.

 

[miguel]

You do not make sense anymore, Moonbeam.

 

[Zebo]

Get a warrant. Independant Judicial review is a cornerstone to our democracy and prevents abuse by the police state. The "it has'nt happened yet" argument is total BS..you think they'd tell if it did? It amazes me how much we trust in our goverment officals when they have been caught red-handed scewing us over so many times.

And habus corpus has been suspended for plenty. Padilla and others have been help for almost 2 years w/o any access to a lawyer and w/o charges. what is this south america where everyone knows someone who has "disappeared"?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: miguel
You do not make sense anymore, Moonbeam.

Hehe, the problem couldn't be on your end, even though that was the direct implication of what I said.

 

[DealMonkey]

Has anyone considered the fact that the Patriot Act is not needed precisely because it isn't doing what it was intended to do: catch terrorists? How many actual terrorists were caught because of the expanded surveillence and investigative powers of the Patriot Act? Only one serious terrorist comes to mind: the shoe bomber, Reid, who's attempted terrorism was so obvious there was no need (IMO) for the Patriot Act to prosecute him.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Has anyone considered the fact that the Patriot Act is not needed precisely because it isn't doing what it was intended to do: catch terrorists? How many actual terrorists were caught because of the expanded surveillence and investigative powers of the Patriot Act? Only one serious terrorist comes to mind: the shoe bomber, Reid, who's attempted terrorism was so obvious there was no need (IMO) for the Patriot Act to prosecute him.

DM, I think the better question would be: how many terrorists attacks have we had in the US since 9/11. A lot of people, including myself, felt that 9/11 was only the beginning. I'm glad I was wrong.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Has anyone considered the fact that the Patriot Act is not needed precisely because it isn't doing what it was intended to do: catch terrorists? How many actual terrorists were caught because of the expanded surveillence and investigative powers of the Patriot Act? Only one serious terrorist comes to mind: the shoe bomber, Reid, who's attempted terrorism was so obvious there was no need (IMO) for the Patriot Act to prosecute him.

DM, I think the better question would be: how many terrorists attacks have we had in the US since 9/11. A lot of people, including myself, felt that 9/11 was only the beginning. I'm glad I was wrong.

You have no idea whether you are right or wrong. We don't know what AlQuaeda is doing. I presume you're not a high up member.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Has anyone considered the fact that the Patriot Act is not needed precisely because it isn't doing what it was intended to do: catch terrorists? How many actual terrorists were caught because of the expanded surveillence and investigative powers of the Patriot Act? Only one serious terrorist comes to mind: the shoe bomber, Reid, who's attempted terrorism was so obvious there was no need (IMO) for the Patriot Act to prosecute him.

DM, I think the better question would be: how many terrorists attacks have we had in the US since 9/11. A lot of people, including myself, felt that 9/11 was only the beginning. I'm glad I was wrong.

You have no idea whether you are right or wrong. We don't know what AlQuaeda is doing. I presume you're not a high up member.

I do have an idea, my celestial friend. What I was referring to were more attacks immediately following 9/11.

 

[rjain]

There were no attacks because none were attempted. If there were any attempted, don't you think the US executive branch could use its newly-found abolute powers to permanently imprison anyone suspected of terrorism and then assemble the evidence and be guaranteed of having enough time to do so? If even with all the provisions for them being able to get all kinds of info about us, they couldn't prosecute anyone found a year ago attempting terrorist attacks, we need to get law enforcers with some drop of competence.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Corn

One thing I do take comfort in is that when these constitutional issues arise, the supreme court will eventually decide on their ultimate legality.

Not only do the courts not WANT to decide on this issue, technically, they have no jurisdiction over it, as the suspects have no recourse to judicial review.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: rjain
There were no attacks because none were attempted. If there were any attempted, don't you think the US executive branch could use its newly-found abolute powers to permanently imprison anyone suspected of terrorism and then assemble the evidence and be guaranteed of having enough time to do so? If even with all the provisions for them being able to get all kinds of info about us, they couldn't prosecute anyone found a year ago attempting terrorist attacks, we need to get law enforcers with some drop of competence.

I think what was being attempted by this Patriot Act was to give law enforcers enough tools to do their job right.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: miguel

I think what was being attempted by this Patriot Act was to give law enforcers enough tools to do their job right.

Military law also gives law enforcers enough tools to do their job right. What's more important? The power of the law enforcers or the freedom of the people? Giving the executive branch the power to be above any judiciary is not just letting them do their job. We should be wary of giving up our freedom willy-nilly in the name of a false sense of security. All we are doing is encouraging and rewarding police corruption.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: miguel

I think what was being attempted by this Patriot Act was to give law enforcers enough tools to do their job right.

Military law also gives law enforcers enough tools to do their job right. What's more important? The power of the law enforcers or the freedom of the people? Giving the executive branch the power to be above any judiciary is not just letting them do their job. We should be wary of giving up our freedom willy-nilly in the name of a false sense of security. All we are doing is encouraging and rewarding police corruption.

rjain, if you read the thread, especially the first post, it addresses specific parts of the Patriot Act that people objected to. I don't know what you are going on about. It seems the worst parts (the ones that people complain about) are already existing for mafia investigations and such. All they did was extend it to include terrorist suspects.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: miguel

I think what was being attempted by this Patriot Act was to give law enforcers enough tools to do their job right.

Military law also gives law enforcers enough tools to do their job right. What's more important? The power of the law enforcers or the freedom of the people? Giving the executive branch the power to be above any judiciary is not just letting them do their job. We should be wary of giving up our freedom willy-nilly in the name of a false sense of security. All we are doing is encouraging and rewarding police corruption.

rjain, if you read the thread, especially the first post, it addresses specific parts of the Patriot Act that people objected to. I don't know what you are going on about. It seems the worst parts (the ones that people complain about) are already existing for mafia investigations and such. All they did was extend it to include terrorist suspects.

Well, my point Miguel is: Why grant expanded police powers and take away American's civil liberties when the Patriot Act isn't being used effectively to combat terrorism. Can you name a terrorist actually caught and prosecuted successfully via the PA? Richard Reid freakin' lit his plastic explosive-laden shoes on fire during a France to U.S. flight -- it was painfully obvious what he was up to and conventional laws could have dealt with him just fine. Can you name anyone else?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Has anyone considered the fact that the Patriot Act is not needed precisely because it isn't doing what it was intended to do: catch terrorists? How many actual terrorists were caught because of the expanded surveillence and investigative powers of the Patriot Act? Only one serious terrorist comes to mind: the shoe bomber, Reid, who's attempted terrorism was so obvious there was no need (IMO) for the Patriot Act to prosecute him.

DM, I think the better question would be: how many terrorists attacks have we had in the US since 9/11. A lot of people, including myself, felt that 9/11 was only the beginning. I'm glad I was wrong.

You have no idea whether you are right or wrong. We don't know what AlQuaeda is doing. I presume you're not a high up member.

I do have an idea, my celestial friend. What I was referring to were more attacks immediately following 9/11.

That you may have been refering to was not what you said.