 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| User | Post |
| emcee Posts: 58/867 |
Well the Senate voted not to renew the remaining portions of The Patriot Act. However, there will be a revote. Later, I'll post some specifics of what the law covers.
On a related note, there's this Originally posted by Wurl Seems I've read that somewhere... |
| Sin Dogan Posts: 60/861 |
Well considering people can search our houses without a warrant and put people in jail without a trial, I think the Patriot Act sucks. I find it funny how if an illegal immigrant who "looks like a Terrorist"(they don't even have to be Muslim or Arab or whatever) is thrown into jail as a terrorist while one who comes from the south of the border is a "migrant worker". It's ridiculous. |
| drjayphd Posts: 71/1170 |
Originally posted by Imajin Well, it does play into the mouthbreather "love it or leave" beliefs, which leave no room whatsoever for independent thought, never mind dissent. Just about everything this administration's done is going under a microscope, moreso their future actions. |
| Imajin Posts: 28/273 |
I personally have no trust in the current administration to use the powers only in emergencies, and think that the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act should, at the very least, have restrictions.
It should also get a name change... I mean, not only is the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act" an incredibly long name, the acronym has that sneaking undertones that sounds like disapproving of it is being unpatriotic to your country. |
| Sinfjotle Posts: 173/1697 |
Everyone that isn't an idiot knows that something can't be idiot proof.
Yeah, I'm looking at you Grey.  |
| Schweiz oder etwas Posts: 217/2046 |
So what you're saying is basically that the nation's being idiot-proofed? |
| Sinfjotle Posts: 169/1697 |
I have to agree with Clock here...
While our civil liberties aren't being violated right out, or there are very few cases, it is still the potential that it could happen that is agrivating. Yeah, at least we know that currently a new amendment won't be passed to the constitution that says they can do this though ... Of course, the supreme court isn't really helping that much in the first place.
Also, we had significant protection originally, it was just that people weren't being careful. |
| Clockworkz Posts: 93/984 |
Nice contribution.
I just don't think that we need all this homeland security crap. It's not nesescary at all. We're protecting ourselves from something that has a practically null chance of happening agian. |
| Alastor Posts: 656/8204 |
Clocky, stop with the exaggerations. They're stupid. |
| Wurl Posts: 80/842 |
"Any man who is willing to risk freedom for temporary safety deserves neither"
-Benjamin Franklin |
| Clockworkz Posts: 85/984 |
I sure do love America. I adore the rights we... used to have. I like being watched on camera all day long, and having my phone calls monitored by the CIA, and having my licence plate scanned along all my other information when I drive past a streetlight. Yes, indeedy. What a helluva country this nation's become. After all; terrorist strikes have become common-place in common everyday American life. We need 24 hour protection from these dehabilitating strikes on our poor, weakend country, as we definately can't retaliate at all. Let's leech the money out of the common man of America, put the country into even more debt, and make more homeland security that we don't need. Sounds OK to me. |
| Wurl Posts: 79/842 |
I feel that American's civil liberties are in grave danger should this act be renewed. |
| emcee Posts: 51/867 |
After September 11th, I knew a little about the Partiot Act, which was quickly pushed through Congress after the attacks. As I learned more it worried me that we could so quickly move away from basic individual rights, towards what we can assume would make us "more secure" (or as Benjamin Franklin put it: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"). And I still worry about what law will be pushed through after the next attack.
There is one thing they did do right however: they made it temporary. Meaning it expires after 4 years (starting at the end of 2001). Over the last four years, however, most of the law has been made permanent, and only the most controversial portions will expire on the 31th unless renewed by Congress. Today the House of Representatives voted 251-174 to renew the law. So next it moves to the Senate, where it will likely face more resistance, and there is talk of filibuster from those who oppose renewal. Most of those opposing renewal aren't looking to let it expire, but instead push the deadline back to March so there is more time discuss its implications, and possibly draft a bipartison alternative. I would be happy with that outcome, although I would like to see the remaining portions of the law dropped altogether. What does everyone else think? |
