Reference the Patriot Act. Also, am I not a patriot if I disagree with the Patriot Act?
2006-11-07 01:18:54 · 11 answers · asked by Jay 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Sounds a bit socialist to me.
Once upon a time, there was a country called America, we fought wars on our own soil and we fought bravely. We were allowed to carry guns and protect ourselves and families. Now the government doesn't think we can protect ourselves or are brave enough to fight if nessasary.
No, just because you don't believe in the patriot act doesn't mean you are not a patriot. It means you feel you are brave enough to fight what comes along. They shouldn't be tapping US they should be tapping other countries!
2006-11-07 01:31:10 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If you have nothing to hide it really shouldn't bother you that much.
I personally think the Patriot Act is a good thing so far, after all we haven't been attack here since 911, maybe someday you can get over Bush winning the elections and start living again. After all isn't that what you Dem's really can't get past! And yes it could mean your not a patriot, if you would rather see more 911 acts, instead doing what needs to be done to protect us.
2006-11-07 01:45:43 · answer #2 · answered by jack 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We haven't been consulted on this. The government has taken our rights away without asking us. The name "Patriot Act" is just a marketing gimmick. It doesn't have anything to do with patriotism. It should be called the Reverse Bill of Rights.
In the future the Patriot Act will be extended to include any other crimes that the government chooses to include. Watch out jaywalkers there's a military tribunal waiting for you.
2006-11-07 01:29:26 · answer #3 · answered by Jabberwock 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I do not agree with the premise of your question. The Patriot Act does not take away any "civil liberties." If you disagree with the Patriot Act, it is because you do not understand it.
The Act gives the federal government tools to track down and stop terrorists before they strike. The Act gives the government the right to use laws already on the books, for gangsters and other criminals who commit crimes within the US.
2006-11-07 01:29:26 · answer #4 · answered by regerugged 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The Patriot Act isn't an important danger. It doesn't strip any constitutional liberties. It in basic terms sticks its nostril into parts that were own. yet there are guidelines that are an instantaneous danger, inclusive of the defense force Commissions Act surpassed in basic terms till now the election. It fairly violates structure. Article a million section 9, by technique of postponing habeas corpus. fifth change, by technique of permitting coerced and forced self-incrimination. sixth change, denial of guidance. sixth change, correct to disagreement. sixth change, correct to present witnesses. eighth change, cruel and unusual punishment. eighth change, denial of bail listening to. fifth change, due procedure. So, the question is -- even as can the authorities in basic terms forget with reference to the criteria of the structure because they imagine it can make human beings safer? How a lot preemptive protection might want to be achived utilising patently unlawful skill?
2016-11-28 21:15:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As Benjamin Franklin said, if a society gives up their liberties in exchange for security they wind up with neither. This seems to be correct in the current situation. We are no safer than we ever were, and our precious freedoms are slipping away.
2006-11-07 01:55:23 · answer #6 · answered by irongrama 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This Bush regime IS the enemy. Giving up liberties is fascist nonsense.
2006-11-07 01:29:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
NEVER surrender liberty for the illusion of security
2006-11-07 01:20:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
1984 here we come.
2006-11-07 01:22:21 · answer #9 · answered by dingdong 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Never, not even one!
2006-11-07 01:21:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋