This is what one of the founding fathers had to say about the patriot act.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" Ben Franklin
Why should we have to change for terrorist? We can`t get these cold war kids out of power fast enough.
2007-07-22 17:54:44
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
9/11 was a shock and a surprise to many Americans.
There was a sudden realization that a need existed to beef up National Security, and change the rules so as to try to do a better job of national defense in the future.
Many federal police agencies had been asking for years for various increased powers, and not getting it because various civil liberties were deemed too important, but when a nation is at war, doing a good job of fighting the war can become more important.
If you look back to the history of WW II, you may see that a lot of liberties were removed for the duration of the war, then reinstated at the end. Well we won that war, and it only took a few years.
We have now been fighting in Iraq for a longer time period than all of WW II. I would not be surprised if the "War on Terrorism" lasts longer than theCold War. It is going to be very hard, when that is finally over, for the people of that future time to return the civil liberties that existed before 9/11.
You might also find comfort in studying the impact of the Church Commission, which led to a great increase in civil liberties in America, at the expense of good domestic intelligence.
I only wish there was some way to achieve both goals:
* a high level of civil liberties and freedom for the people
* a high level of intelligence to protect the people from external threats
Current state of art seems to be we must find a good balance between two competing goals
2007-07-23 02:50:44
·
answer #2
·
answered by Al Mac Wheel 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Pretty much.
Several hundred pages of bill were rushed off the printers at 3am and voted on a few hours later. After huge numbers of substantive changes compared to what they had debated on before. Paranoia and a sense of fear did the rest.
And yes, it's obnoxious and intrusive, but it's nowhere near as bad as some of the other things that have passed in the last 5 years.
2007-07-23 00:51:00
·
answer #3
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
The patriot passed because of what was going under the table. Our congress knew it was not needed but with a little padding Bush got what he wanted.
2007-07-23 00:51:34
·
answer #4
·
answered by Questionable 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well it was a rather long document that many people did not even read. It was needed for the protection of our country but many Liberals are complaining about its intrusiveness, but the fact is many Democrats signed the bill.
You know why they signed it? Because they said they didn't have time to finish reading the entire thing. In my opinion, if I was a politician, I would not sign anything I did not read 100%.
Fact is, it helps protect us, many people just don't understand how it protects us.
2007-07-23 01:39:04
·
answer #5
·
answered by Gump023 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Because noboby in Congress actually reads the bills they vote on.
Nor do they listen to their consitituents, who actually DO read the bills.
Makes you wonder what they're really doing there.
2007-07-23 00:55:29
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
the patriot act was passed so the government could spy on suspicious US citizens because they ignored all the emails and warnings sent DIRECTLY to them before 9-11 telling them what was going to happen.
2007-07-23 00:51:42
·
answer #7
·
answered by sarah r 4
·
0⤊
2⤋
because no one in congress read the damned thing because they thought it was too long, fools
2007-07-23 00:54:13
·
answer #8
·
answered by ranaway628 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
because it was needed to protect the usa and it is constitutional
2007-07-23 00:50:04
·
answer #9
·
answered by blktan23 3
·
0⤊
3⤋
Or lied to.
2007-07-23 00:48:26
·
answer #10
·
answered by fionabtoo 4
·
1⤊
0⤋