Hell- we didn't need any rights anyway, right?

[IKnowNot]

I'm trying to catch up on some of these points ( never discuss politics or religion by the way )
tonybradley:
First, I think I am getting senile, I thought a while ago I read that you were a staunch Democrat, and a contributor to the Democratic party. Must have been someone else I guess.

Anyway, I think you did make some VERY valid statements, probably the most sense so far ( except for Tiger Shark ):

I don't like the government being allowed to do things that circumvent the Constitution or our laws in the name of national security. Too much is going on in secret behind closed doors in the name of national security. Too many agendas that have nothing to do with national security are being stamped "national security" and put on the express lane through congress in back rooms where we the people and the press don't get to have any say- because its "national security".

I am all for having national security and having the government do what they need to do to ensure it, but you can't just hijack the whole government system and bypass the checks and balances that have kept things balanced for over 200 years and automatically assume that just because a politician says something is a "national security" issue that it should automatically get the green light.

They are supposed to represent "we the people" and I think they have an obligation to keep us informed of what they are doing and why. Some things must be kept secret in the interest of national security- but we need someone to mediate that label and use a little more discretion regarding which actions and legislation are worthy of that treatment.

moxnix

Illegal search and seisure (when in a motor vehical) is now acceptable, where as even 30 years ago it would have caused a major disturbance in our population.

This is totally untrue. If fact, the pendulum has swung the other way. There has been exceptions for the warrant requirement for the automobile because of its mobility, etc. for years and years, but some states are now taking it upon themselves to place limits on these searches. This has been prompted by an unbalanced number of arrests of minorities being found to have contraband in their vehicles. ( no comment on this )

---------------

Politicians understand something that is missed by many. That is that people forget !! For the most part, people understand the NOW. Like it or not, Clinton rode on the planning of Bush Sr. as far as the economy goes, rode it into a second term. By the time Bush Jr. took office, the policies of the previous administration had taken root and severely crippled the economic well being of the nation. I am not saying that Bush Jr.'s policies are good, just that he inherited a mess, and it will take years to correct ( if he does it right ). And who knows who wil be president when that time comes.

tonybradley,

We'll go down a whole new road about whether or not the right to bear arms was really intended the way the NRA professes.

You were correct not to touch this one. In all the statistics concerning deaths involving firearms did they break it down to legal and illegally obtained firearms??

Maybe I should add this to my profile, but I am a certified NRA Pistol instructor. Best not to touch this one. If you want to, first check out the statics available and what they actually mean. Then the legislation that was past in Jersey by the Democratic Governor concerning gun control and technology that has not even been invented yet!!! Also, search the news archives about the deals he allegedly made with the NRA and then reneged on as soon as he won the election.

I am very pleased to see the opinions of people from outside the U.S. Concerning this topic. I personally would never neg someone for speaking their mind on a topic such as this ( unless they disagreed with me ). Truthfully, I think these opinions are important, and may indeed open some eyes.

I still go stand by my original post,

It has been my observation that the laws sway like a pendulum. The "Patriot Act" is just the pendulum swinging one way, as does society, in response to specific issues which were caused by the pendulum being too far the other way. Too bad we can't find the middle ground and stick to it !!

[Tachyon]

I'll chime in...not sure what I will add, but hey.

I think that we can all agree that no matter what has happened in the past, we are all responsible for our own actions in the present. My dad was an alcoholic and beat his wife, now in some of your thinking, the past has messed up my present and future, so I too am expected to beat my wife.

Now I can agree that Clinton created some situations that may have made it 'tough' on Bush, but that did not force Bush's hand in anything. He is is own man, making his own decisions, for better or worse.


On a side note, I always laugh when I hear the 18 year olds whine whenever the draft issue comes up. Why is it that these folks only care about certain things when they might directly effect them? Any other time its "if it doesn't have anything to do with me...then F'em"

They do not have any idea what it is to be in the armed forces. All the **** we go through, and yet we still have pride in ourselves and our country. Most of us did not whine and complain when we got our orders for Kuwait and Iraq...we prepared, kissed our wives, and went and did what we were meant to do.

Now I am not supporting the draft. Just an observation on american youth pyschology. Even at the hint of being forced to do something, they complain/yell/throw a tantrum. And when I say 'hint' of a draft, really I am saying no draft at all, because the Administration and any future administration knows that would be the death of their reign.

Don't worry all you 18 year olds out there. The government will not draft you. They will just continue to pound the forces it has into the ground.

Don't worry, we'll pick up the slack.


*Edit*
Yeah I kind got up on my 'Uncle Sam, support your troops' soap box there. And I apologize for that.

[bballad]

So let me get this straigt, all of bushes decesions have been forced on him by clinton. clinton has so much power and influence that he can force the current president to errode our rights...wow that is one prety powerful man. Face it, errosion of our rights, bushes fault, I am not talking about past errorsions no other president has taken away a citizans rights to due process, bush has. Tha has nothing to do with clinton...nothing, it has nothing to do with 9/11 (besides being an excuse), this is all on bush

[St1cky]

Without 9/11 Bush wouldn't of had any good reason to release the Patriot Act, without 9/11 the Economy would be in much better shape. Without 9/11 we wouldn't be at war right now. Face it, there's a lot of stuff that may or may not have happened had 9/11 not happened, but we'll never know what that stuff would've been. I am curious about whether or not the War on Iraq would've happened though.

[tonybradley]

I definitely see and understand Tiger Shark's point- had the Clinton administration made different decisions or implemented different security or preventive measures or hunted down and killed Bin Laden themselves, perhaps 9/11 would never have occurred and there would have been no "need" for the PATRIOT Act.

However, I very much side with BBallad that it is an excuse and not a reason. Yes they need to secure the country and protect national security- but they don't need to revoke everyone's rights to do it. Bush may not have been able to prevent 9/11 (maybe he could have- who knows?), but it is still this administration that is so blatantly defiant of the Constitution, public opinion of voting Americans, dissenting points of view from the other side of the aisle, and the requests of our allies.

The 9/11 fallout and the PATRIOT Act are only a small part of why Bush is an inept jackoff and a pathetic excuse for a leader. Giving tax cuts while increasing spending and getting into a $100 Billion (plus) war is ridiculous. Sure has spurred on the economy- look at it go!

All Presidents have to handle the fallout of the previous administration. They conveniently blame all problems in their first term on the previous administration. They have no problem claiming victory when the previous administration fallout is good though. But, good, bad or indifferent it is THEIR choice how they handle those issues and they must take responsibility for it.

[RoadClosed]

Bashing and absolute hatred aside, I will make the patriot act an agenda on my own personal political alignment in the next election. I saw the need for it and as time goes, it will be removed or I will chime up for removal of the president.

I have some friends who are extreme liberals. We've had arguments for and against gun control over beers at a local brew house MANY times. The other night at happy hour they were absolutely livid about the exact same thing Tony posted when he started this thread. The patriot act and the added fantasy that we are all going to lose our freedoms and be thrust into a dictatorship because the patriot act will become permanent law. I was waiting for this! Because I have always argued that a population of armed citizen would be helpful if that ever happened. I asked them if they were so worried about it, would they be willing to take up arms and defend their constitutional rights. They all stared at me.

I support a lot of what Bush does, but I don't agree on everything. Just like I don't agree on everything my boss does, or my girl friend or my dog. I even support some of what Clinton wanted to do, even though I didn't vote for him or when the rest of the world was laughing at us. Sure Bush is rich, but I can't think of any president in the last 50 years that wasn't. Presidents are successful people. They wouldn't be there if they weren't.

In some cases party affiliation in this country has become a mockery. It's like a religion in some aspects

[Tachyon]

RoadClosed:

For alot of people its just a way to belong. To call themselves something. Some of these people aren't really republican/democrat, they just want to take a stand on something, even if they don't fully understand it or believe in it.

But hey they get to put cool bumber stickers on their cars.

[Maestr0]

I don't think anything the Bush admistration has done was forced by Clinton's administration. The policies and views of the current administration were in place long before 9/11 and Clinton. The current state of world affairs go back much further than Clinton and they are also much deeper and more complex. We are now seeing the effects of foreign policies which were implemented as long ago as 1948 starting with the creation of Israel. Of course hindsight is 20/20 but we havent exactly helped oursleves as much as we could have, some of the US decisions (and others) are mind-boggling and confusing to say the least, a detailed account of middle east politics can be found in the books of Yossef Bodanksy.(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...07615357995000)
Lets not forget that although it was a New York company that sold Tsaddam his plans for nerve gas to bomb Iran with, we were also selling Iran guns to shoot Iraq with. The thought being as long as they were busy with each other they wouldnt pose any threat to us. Let's also remember that prior to Tsaddam, public enemy #1 was Noriega who incidently was on the CIA payroll for 15 years and was only invaded after seizing questionable American funds stored in Pannamanian banks, and he demanded that the Pannama canal be returned to his country as was agreed. Much like our WMD in Iraq, the copius piles of paperwork proving Noriega was the Cocaine kingpin failed to materialize although he was convicted on 8 counts and imprisoned. The list of people upset with us, our allies or others goes on, and to think that if Clinton had just given the armed forces a few billion dollars everything would be grand is naive.The policy followed by the current administration is the same uni-polar policies that they were trying to push as early as 1992 as seen in the "definitive guidance from the Secretary of Defense" as laid out by Paul Wolfowitz. (Washington Post 1992 http://www.yale.edu/strattech/92dpg.html) The policy was originally written for George Bush Sr. but was deemed "over the top" at that time. This policy reflects a shift in US policy towards a more agressive and hard line approach in the post cold-war global politics as seen here:

"There was one important addition, and that was that the United States would be prepared to preempt the use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons by any other nation -- even, the document said, where our interests are otherwise not engaged. That is to say, in a war somewhere else, that's not about us. It spoke of punishing or retaliating for that use. But it also said "preempt." This is the first time."

"Now you have to remember, these are exactly the same people [in 1992] who are most influential right now in the U.S. government, and in the formation of U.S. strategic policy. It's Dick Cheney as defense secretary. It's Paul Wolfowitz as undersecretary [of defense] for policy. And it's a guy named Scooter Libby who is, right now, Dick Cheney's chief of staff and chief strategist, who was deputy to Paul Wolfowitz. And they were the three drafting authorities for this Guidance."
(PBS:Frontline - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...emes/1992.html)

This policy was viewed as a bit radical and uncalled for at the time of its writing, as well as the fact that the American public might be more than a little uncomfortable at implemeting such a policy. But 9/11 changed all that. Nothing inspires people to relenquish civil liberties and go to war more than fear and the promise of protection from the enemy,real or imagined. The use of fear in politics to get your way and consolidate power is one of the oldest in the book so to speak and its use in America (9/11 - Patriot Act) is not so different from its use in Germany in WWII such as the burning of the Reichstag. Please note I'm not implying we destroyed the towers oursleves, merely that it provided the perfect leverage for the current adminstration to get done what they thought should have been done 10 years earlier. I am always chilled by the eerie statements of Hermann Goering during an interview at the nuremburg trials where he said:

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Although I dont believe the current shift is irreversible (as someone else said societies tend to swing like pendulems) It is always a strange and dangerous time to live when the pendelum is in full swing.

Pax vobiscum,
Maestr0

[bballad]

Maestr0: I agree with you almost compleatly...lets leave the creation of Israel out of this, That was a british mistake that the US was initialy aginst. Our continued support of that country started later.

I think we would have seen the patriot act, and the iraq war without 9/11 with this current administration.

[RoadClosed]

That's a blanket statement bballad, so I'll make one:

I think we would have seen more immediate attacks without the current administration.