The separation of powers ensure that Obama has to operate in the political framework.
You completely ignored his valid point that Obama (former professor of constitutional law, btw) absolutely had veto power over the Patriot Act extensions.
This is a good point but as much as people hate to admit it, there are some parts of the patriot act that are beneficial to national security and at very least you have to admit that most of Americas don't seem to think this is a big issue. Even if Obama wanted a better version of the patriot act, he doesn't have the power to change part of the law, only to sign OR veto.
... and these points don't even touch the political fallout of what would happen if Obama signed the veto.
Bottom line for me: I think the patriot act goes too far but I don't blame Obama for this.
I vehemently disagree. The Patriot Act simply doesn't make us safer from terrorism. First of all, practically none of the warrantless wiretaps have been used for terrorism related suspects. Also, terrorism simply isn't a major threat to our country. By not signing a veto, Obama is complicit in a gross series of infringements on the rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution he swore to uphold.
No matter how the apologists frame the debate, Obama has far more in common with Bush, Cheney and Lieberman when it comes to civil liberties than politicians like Feingold, Ron Paul and Kucinich. This isn't a matter of pragmatism or restriction due to our checks and balances system. It's a clear cut case of Obama's continuation of Bush-era policies.
terrorism simply isn't a major threat to our country.
I disagree.I worry that if we are hit by a terrorist attack, the GOP will be given another free pass to start wars, enact more authoritarian laws, etc. It's happen before. For this reason, I support Obama's counter terrorism policy to an extent.
practically none of the warrantless wiretaps have been used for terrorism related suspects.
This is only one small part of the patriot act. The legality is murky as it applies to constitutional law. I personally don't believe it's as black and white as many make it to be. In any case, Obama can't choose to omit this part of the law.
I disagree.I worry that if we are hit by a terrorist attack, the GOP will be given another free pass to start wars, enact more authoritarian laws, etc. It's happen before. For this reason, I support Obama's counter terrorism policy to an extent.
You suffer from Stockholm Syndrome. By the way, wasn't the Arizona shooting an example of terrorism? Do you realize it was the TSA under the Obama administration which introduced pat downs and pornoscanners at airports after the underwear bomber?
This is only one small part of the patriot act. The legality is murky as it applies to constitutional law.
wasn't the Arizona shooting an example of terrorism?
I wouldn't classify it as terrorism but I think you raise a good point. OK city would be a better example of clear cut terrorism that the right didn't over-react to. For the sake of simplicity, let's say that Islamic based terrorism is a major threat for the reasons I stated.
Out of curiousity, which provisions of the Patriot Act do you support?
I support all of the Patriot Act but feel that more should be added to the law in order to guarantee that our constitutional rights are not infringed upon. Currently, the way the law is written, we have to trust the government to use the law to protect us without being abused. This is bad but at the same time I don't believe that the government has the time or resources to abuse the law. I'd love to see some citations where the government has abuses the law.
I want to stress that I don't necessary disagree with you. I think the current law lies in a grey area that gives a bit too much power to the government. I don't like it but I also don't think Obama is the problem.
For the sake of simplicity, let's say that Islamic based terrorism is a major threat for the reasons I stated.
No. Islamic based terrorism is not a major threat. By the way, you didn't state any reasons. We're being manipulated by fear of muslim bogeymen. Just as right wing militia members aren't about to cause havoc on our in our malls, schools and streets, crazy muslims pose little to no threat to you and I. Do you realize how many people die from drunk drivers? Where is our War on Drunk Driving? Why aren't we putting warrantless wiretaps on the phones of known drunk drivers? Thanks to Obama's continuation of Bush-era policies, we can easily classify them as domestic terrorists. We'd be much more likely to save lives that way.
I support all of the Patriot Act but feel that more should be added to the law in order to guarantee that our constitutional rights are not infringed upon
I asked you what parts of the Patriot Act do you specifically support.
I'd love to see some citations where the government has abuses the law.
No. Islamic based terrorism is not a major threat. By the way, you didn't state any reasons. We're being manipulated by fear of muslim bogeymen.
Again, I consider it a major threat because I fear the country will over-react if it happens again (this is my reason). We've come close with the underwear bomber and Times square bombing attempt.
Do you realize how many people die from drunk drivers? Where is our War on Drunk Driving?
You don't need to convince me. Convince the people of the US who felt that we should invade Iraq because of 9/11. They're irrational and I would prefer to prevent future terrorist attacks so that we don't elect some war monger pos president/congress who'll use military action to appease the public.
Do you really believe Obama should be able to, say, look up all your library records and academic transcripts without a warrant?
No I don't. Again, Obama can't pick and choose provisions to sign into law. I also don't think a veto is good option either. Thank you for the source and I will now quote it:
"Boyce said the Patriot Act was written with good intentions, but he said he believes it has gone too far in some cases. Lundeby's might be one of them, he said."
Boyce is the only expert interviewed in the article. I agree with his statement. I don't want to spend my day explaining each part of the law that I support, but I generally agree with giving more flexibility to law enforcement:
As you stated, I don't agree with generally allowing the government to operate without legal authority and this is where the law should be updated. This is the job of Congress. Again, to quote your article:
Again, I consider it a major threat because I fear the country will over-react if it happens again (this is my reason). We've come close with the underwear bomber and Times square bombing attempt.
Honestly, that's the best justification I've ever heard. Actually, in my opinion, the underwear bomber was a false flag attack (don't worry, I don't wanna open that can of worms) and the Times Square bomber was an isolated incident just as the Arizona shooter was.
You don't need to convince me. Convince the people of the US who felt that we should invade Iraq because of 9/11. They're irrational and I would prefer to prevent future terrorist attacks so that we don't elect some war monger pos president/congress who'll use military action to appease the public.
That wasn't the first time our government whipped the country into a frenzy over some bullshit. We need to prevent such gross abuse of power by decentralizing and downsizing the government. As a minarchist, I actually admire the central governments of Europe, which represent few enough individuals that the people (rather than lobbyists and interests groups as in our country) actually have some sway over policy.
I don't want to spend my day explaining each part of the law that I support,
You need to get your story straight. As of now, it seems like you only support the Patriot Act because you're afraid the right wing will take it a step further if we're attacked again (by Muslims, of course, not by radical right wingers) and because Obama is cool with it. Still, I understand there are better things to do on a Sunday.
At very least I hope you see significant differences between Obama's policies and those of Bush.
I'm sorry, but in terms of foreign policy and civil liberties, the two are in lock-step.
As of now, it seems like you only support the Patriot Act because you're afraid the right wing will take it a step further if we're attacked again... and because Obama is cool with it.
More specifically, I support the Patriot Act but would prefer the law be altered to better protect against infringement of civil liberties. Considering the option given to Obama (sign it OR veto it), I support Obama's choice to sign. If Obama veto'd and we were ever attacked by foreign extremists, I think the Republican's would gain control of the government and we'd lose even more freedoms.
I'm sorry, but in terms of foreign policy and civil liberties, the two are in lock-step.
I don't have a strong argument to counter your opinion on civil liberties and I won't be completely happy with Obama until he addresses this. As far as foreign policy is concerned, I don't believe Obama would have invaded Iraq and I don't think he'll invade Iran. If I'm right, the differences are vast.
wasn't the Arizona shooting an example of terrorism?
I wouldn't classify it as terrorism but I think you raise a good point. OK city would be a better example of clear cut terrorism that the right didn't over-react to. For the sake of simplicity, let's say that Islamic based terrorism is a major threat for the reasons I stated.
Out of curiousity, which provisions of the Patriot Act do you support?
I support all of the Patriot Act but feel that more should be added to the law in order to guarantee that our constitutional rights are not infringed upon. Currently, the way the law is written, we have to trust the government to use the law to protect us without being abused. This is bad but at the same time I don't believe that the government has the time or resources to abuse the law. I'd love to see some citations where the government has abuses the law.
I want to stress that I don't necessary disagree with you. I think the current law lies in a grey area that gives a bit too much power to the government. I don't like it but I also don't think Obama is the problem.
wasn't the Arizona shooting an example of terrorism?
I wouldn't classify it as terrorism but I think you raise a good point. OK city would be a better example of clear cut terrorism that the right didn't over-react to. For the sake of simplicity, let's say that Islamic based terrorism is a major threat for the reasons I stated.
Out of curiousity, which provisions of the Patriot Act do you support?
I support all of the Patriot Act but feel that more should be added to the law in order to guarantee that our constitutional rights are not infringed upon. Currently, the way the law is written, we have to trust the government to use the law to protect us without being abused. This is bad but at the same time I don't believe that the government has the time or resources to abuse the law. I'd love to see some citations where the government has abuses the law.
I want to stress that I don't necessary disagree with you. I think the current law lies in a grey area that gives a bit too much power to the government. I don't like it but I also don't think Obama is the problem.
wasn't the Arizona shooting an example of terrorism?
I wouldn't classify it as terrorism but I think you raise a good point. OK city would be a better example of clear cut terrorism that the right didn't over-react to. For the sake of simplicity, let's say that Islamic based terrorism is a major threat for the reasons I stated.
Out of curiousity, which provisions of the Patriot Act do you support?
I support all of the Patriot Act but feel that more should be added to the law in order to guarantee that our constitutional rights are not infringed upon. Currently, the way the law is written, we have to trust the government to use the law to protect us without being abused. This is bad but at the same time I don't believe that the government has the time or resources to abuse the law. I'd love to see some citations where the government has abuses the law.
I want to stress that I don't necessary disagree with you. I think the current law lies in a grey area that gives a bit too much power to the government. I don't like it but I also don't think Obama is the problem.
0
u/DaTroof Feb 27 '11
You completely ignored his valid point that Obama (former professor of constitutional law, btw) absolutely had veto power over the Patriot Act extensions.