Libs, you say tha Patriot act takes away your rights?

Question

Both Hillary and Obama voted yes to reauthorize the Patriot Act so how is you can support a candidate that supports your rights being taken away?

Answer 1

The silence is deafening.

Answer 2

The 'rights' in question are potential violations by the state of basic constitutional rights. There are many, a main one is loosing Constitutional rights to privacy due to the way wire tap authorizations are issued under the Patriot Act.
I don't and would never support Hillary (too self serving, dumb and dynastic), can't support Obama because he doesn't have enough experience, but do not want to vote for any of the Republican candidates. Also, most of our representatives supported this act at the time, so what?

Answer 3

Hillary opposes the wire tapping aspect of the Patriot Act although she did vote for it twice. Once in 2001 and the other in 2006.

During the renewal of the Patriot Act in late 2005, Clinton did join 46 other senators in that vote, including 5 Republicans. Those who wanted debate to continue didn't necessarily oppose the law itself, however, but were pushing to give federal judges greater control over some of the expanded surveillance powers the law gives to law-enforcement officials.

At the time, Clinton released a statement explaining her vote. In the statement, Clinton listed concerns about lack of a risk-based system to allocate homeland security funds and a need to balance civil liberty protections along with the security measure:

Clinton: I believe the conference report falls short of this goal, and I am hopeful that with more time, those negotiating these provisions will find the proper balance.

Debate on the reauthorization of the Patriot Act continued when Congress came back from its winter recess. After some changes, Clinton voted for the bill when it came up for final passage on March 2, 2006.

Clinton did question the NSA wiretapping program, and sharply attacked Bush for the NSA program, saying the President lacked legal authority to order wiretaps without judicial warrants, and has "stonewalled" Congress by refusing to supply details of how the program works.

She hasn't opposed eavesdropping on suspected terrorists, however, and in fact has said she would allow warrantless wiretaps in certain cases during "the immediate aftermath of war," and that "in cases of true emergencies" she would allow law enforcement officials to eavesdrop first and get a warrant later.

There is a difference!

Answer 4

Sorry to confuse you with the facts:


"But soon after the PATRIOT Act passed, a few years before I ever arrived in the Senate, I began hearing concerns from people of every background and political leaning that this law didn't just provide law enforcement the powers it needed to keep us safe, but powers it didn't need to invade our privacy without cause or suspicion.

Now, at times this issue has tended to degenerate into an "either-or" type of debate. Either we protect our people from terror or we protect our most cherished principles. But that is a false choice. It asks too little of us and assumes too little about America.

Fortunately, last year, the Senate recognized that this was a false choice. We put patriotism before partisanship and engaged in a real, open, and substantive debate about how to fix the PATRIOT Act. And Republicans and Democrats came together to propose sensible improvements to the Act. Unfortunately, the House was resistant to these changes, and that's why we're voting on the compromise before us.

Let me be clear: this compromise is not as good as the Senate version of the bill, nor is it as good as the SAFE Act that I have cosponsored. I suspect the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel the same way. But, it's still better than what the House originally proposed.

This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe. In this compromise:

We strengthened judicial review of both National Security Letters, the administrative subpoenas used by the FBI, and Section 215 orders, which can be used to obtain medical, financial and other personal records.


We established hard time limits on sneak-and-peak searches and limits on roving wiretaps.


We protected most libraries from being subject to National Security Letters.


We preserved an individual's right to seek counsel and hire an attorney without fearing the FBI's wrath.


And we allowed judicial review of the gag orders that accompany Section 215 searches. "

Answer 5

I've never been up at arms about the Patriot Act... it's got some parts that need to go... and others that are just ridiculous.. .. and if you don't believe that just look at all the hoops the FBI is having to jump threw now because of their abuse of it... they (Hillary and Obama) decided the good in the act outweighed the bad by enough to vote for it.. so long as people are seriously working to fix it's problems I'm ok with that.

Answer 6

I support neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama but; if you think that it is fair and just for the gov't. to rifle through your personal belongings and sneek-a-peek into your property without the backing of a court order, then there is something terribly wrong with your sense of a free America.
Here are a few items you can look at to rethink your thinking on this idea:

The Domestic Security Enhancement Act (also called "Patriot Act 2"):

Further dismantles court review of surveillance, such as by terminating court-approved limits on police spying on religious and political activity (sec. 312), allowing the government to obtain credit records and library records secretly and without judicial oversight (secs. 126, 128, 129), and by allowing wiretaps without a court order for up to 15 days following a terrorist attack (sec. 103);
Allows government to operate in secret by authorizing secret arrests (sec. 201), and imposing severe restrictions on the release of information about the hazards to the community posed by chemical and other plants (sec. 202);
Further expands the reach of an already overbroad definition of terrorism so that organizations engaged in civil disobedience are at risk of government wiretapping (secs. 120, 121) asset seizure (secs. 428, 428), and their supporters could even risk losing their citizenship (sec. 501);
Gives foreign dictatorships the power to seek searches and seizures in the United States (sec. 321), and to extradite American citizens to face trial in foreign courts (sec. 322), even if the United States Senate has not approved a treaty with that government; and
Unfairly targets immigrants under the pretext of fighting terrorism by stripping even lawful immigrants of the right to a fair deportation hearing and stripping the federal courts of their power to correct unlawful actions by the immigration authorities (secs. 503, 504).
These are only examples of the unfettered powers that the new bill would grant to the government; for a complete analysis, please see ACLU's detailed section-by-section summary, available on our website.[3]

Answer 7

I don't support them, as it stands right now I think I will cast by vote "None if The Above" as for the Patriot Act, all that did was legalize the things that certain government agencies have been doing (secretly) for many years.

Answer 8

NO president will be dumb enough to let go of the patriot act. If a terrorist attack happens and it is unveiled that the patriot act could've prevented it than it would be his/her downfall. They just have to slam Bush in order to keep their political base.

Pretty pathetic when all you have to do is attack and smear your opponent in order to simply keep your political base.

Answer 9

The patriot act violated constitutional rights of Americans and both have voiced their concern here.

Answer 10

Yesterday on the radio I heard a man on the street asking someone about who they would vote for. The interviewee said, GET THIS..."Well, I'm female, and black, so I don't know which one I should vote for." My point is this...they aren't going to try to get votes with something as basic as ISSUES.

Answer 11

You tell em Bro!!!
I always said If the government wants to listen in on my phone conversations about how I ***** about my job and my old lady, let them!!
I say bug every form of communication of every muslim male and female in this country!
Especially the ones that are in college, have no jobs, never show up for class, and hang around secretly with other bugeaters!!!!
Typical liberal flip flop garbage.