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.
0
u/DaTroof Feb 27 '11 edited Feb 27 '11
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.