Posted on 06/13/2005 10:21:02 AM PDT by DTogo
As recently suggested, here's a thread to allow FReepers to post (if they want to) how they voted on this poll, why, etc. Let's keep it civil! :)
Note: Any government act that has to be prefaced with the title "Patriot" should raise our suspicions on that ground alone.
I voted to kill this snake in it's crib.
And while it occurs to me: Same goes for titles like "Megan's Law" or "Katie's Law".
Sorry for the hostile post. I read your eariler comments and realize I misunderstood your motive.
What would your concern be with laws like "Megan's" or "Katie's Law"? I don't know the specifics and I've never heard any objections to them before.
I'm not sure who you're posting too. I never said we had nothing to fear from our government.
Power and government can be VERY dangerous...and so can the Patriot Act be. I never stated that it would not be a dangerous act. Um you might want to actually read my posts before you respond.
And who gave you the power to determine if I am an American. Wow, you are a little on the "power hungry" side yourself.
To be perfectly honest, I'm not completely sure what any of them are about (in fact, I don't think there's such a thing as "Katie's Law", but there are others with similar names), though I assume that they have to do with young children who were victimized in some sense or another. For all I know, they could be perfectly fine laws, but as you say, certain things should raise our suspicions. In cases like this, my suspicions are twofold:
One, it's a very safe bet that whatever happened to these children was already highly illegal, and that the perpetrators probably were sentenced to stiff punishment for what they did. If the laws simply mandated an increase in punishment, I'd have no problem with them. But more likely, they're ways of "preventing" such crime, by making it easier for the authorities to check on people in ways that they couldn't otherwise do for the prevention of other types of crime. The whole modus operandi of government these days is not to enforce existing laws more effectively when things go wrong, but to keep passing new laws.
Secondly, names like that are designed to appeal to emotion, and discourage people from looking over the law with a critical eye for things that aren't necessary (perhaps even counterproductive) for addressing the problem that its backers claim to want to address. I just think there are certain parallels with names like the "Patriot Act".
I read this at #317:
"My first reaction was NOT one of fear against my government, but against the ENEMY of my Government."
Forgive me for taking your statement at face value.
For this reason, the Patriot Act should have it's name changed to the anti-Terrorist Act.
I said, "my first reaction was not one of fear against my government."
First reactions are not necessarily how we come to see the situation. How exactly does that make me Un-American?
OK, but when all you post is your first reaction, without explaining how your perception might have changed since then, most people are going to conclude that you were making some kind of point by telling us your first reaction.
In any case, I'm glad you see the inherent threat involved in the Patriot Act. It's an unnecessary threat, too, in my opinion. Yes, government agents should keep tabs on suspected persons, but they should not have legal immunity for doing so, unless they get a warrant in accordance with the 4th amendment, from someone constitutionally vested with judicial powers. Without such a warrant, they should be prepared to defend their actions in front of a jury, if need be, just like everyone else.
Chuckling here.....unless you've got it buried in your back yard - you have no financial privacy and haven't had it since the age of the internet.
But what rights have you personally lost or expect to?
There are those who get rather dramatic on this subject. It is their political flavor. Just ignore if it bothers you.
It is. Just remember, not all kindergartners play well together. :-)
You're right. These particular threads do not get a "plays well with others". :o)
Sorry about that.
Well past my sleepytime. :-)
Please provide an example of our gubmint giving up power it has accrued. The rights (especially our rights to privacy in our homes), will never be given back since the WOT will never be over!
And I reject totally the concept that in order to fight the WOT effectively, we have to give up any rights!
There is no off-switch in the Constitution.
You actually have already given up your freedoms. I was arrested in my driveway in front of my teenagers. The Sherrif followed me to my home after I supposedly ran a red light. After showing him my drivers license and him returning it, he proceeded to lecture me on something I had not done. After the lecture turned into an argument, he asked again for my license.
Now mind you, he had already ascertained my identity and where I lived...this was now turning into harrassment. I turned toward my purse to retrieve my driver's license, when he lunged at me, wrestled me to the ground, cuffed me and placed me in his squad car. He said he was arresting me for resisting arrest!! He never read me my rights...just proceeded to lecture me. When he was done, he let me go.
Now mind you, I am a 130 lb, 48 year old grandmother, mother of 5 who has never had a speeding ticket...never been ticketed or arrested of anything (I was warned once for speeding.) I did report him, although nothing came of it. I probably could have pursued legal action (since all of my neighbors were witnesses), but the law agencies of our communitites have much better things to do with their time, as do I.
I'm telling you this story to prove a point....if they WANT you, they will get you, and really there is nothing you can do about it!
Now, that brings me to the interment camps of World War II. The Japanese-Americans suffered a great deal, but it was as much for their safety as ours. Of course that act was rescinded as soon as was reasonable.
Perhaps, if we all profile terrorist on our own, threated them ourselves, like the citizens did to the Japanese in World War II, Gitmo would actually be seen as a "safe haven" for these terrorist. But then again....THAT is against the Constitution now isn't it.
The rights and obligations in the Constitution will in no way prevent bad behavior on the part of individuals, including presidents(F. Roosevelt regarding the internment camps).
And I agree completely with you that we have already given up many, many rights. Shame on us!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.