Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
Jessica, The Constitution does not guarantee those rights during times of war.
If you think the Patriot Act has taken away civil liberties, you can blame Congress. They wrote the Patriot Act. By the way, Congress does have the right to write laws. The Patriot Act was a bi-partisan piece of legislation. It passed by a vote of 450-0 or something like that.
Our relations are beter than ever with most Arab states. We have great relations with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Turkey, the new Iraqi government, Pakistan, Libya, etc.
In terms of our actions inflaming the masses in the Middle East, I would agree that that is true. But that's not totally our fault. Those people get nothing but propaganda over there and are not given the truth. The press constantly bashes us over there and intentionally misleads the masses.
|
Rupert, for a man who wants people to deal in the facts, you're not very careful about checking your own...
The Sixth Amendment does not contain an exception for wartime. There have been cases that have argued there is an implicit exception, but if you're a strict constructionist, it ain't technically in there.
The two main drafters of the PATRIOT Act were Ass't Attorney General Viet D. Dinh and future Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff. I'd hardly call that "bi-partisan." And neither were Congressmembers when they drafted the PATRIOT Act.
Yes, it was passed with overwhelming support- 98-1 in the Senate and 357-66 in the House (100 Senators and 435 Representatives, for a total of 535 voting bodies. I guess some abstained. I'm uncertain where you got 450- please let me know if I'm wrong about the number of Reps we have). Many Representatives and Senators didn't even read the whole thing, since it was dropped on them fast and the vote brought up faster (doesn't excuse them for not reading it, but sure seems shifty on behalf of Bush & Co, eh? Where was the harm in letting people have time to read the darn thing before making them vote on it?). If they had read it, maybe they might have noticed provision 411, which makes any association with a terrorist EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW THE PERSON WAS A TERRORIST a deportable offense. How about that? Your coworker turns out to be an Islamic radical and suddenly you are shipped out of the country.
Sixteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, weren't they? As in "We have great relations with Saudi Arabia" Saudi Arabia? And most of those nations you list are not democracies, correct?
Speaking of the people "over there" getting propaganda and not the truth-- have you watched Fox News lately? Pot? Kettle. Have you met?
You're absolutely right to not want to accept opinion as fact, but it sometimes seems that you prefer to cut the right a break on facts and hold the left to a higher standard. And they should both be held to the same one (high). So be fair and balanced, why don' 'cha, since Fox News clearly won't be?
For everyone-- here's a link to Keith Olberman on 9/11-- he's become somewhat of a darling of the liberal blogosphere, which I find odd because he's hardly a liberal, but I guess in these right-winger times, a fair analysis seems like a left-leaning one...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=B_4ZmcPEcVY
But I'm still glad you're posting, Rupert-- it's no fun debating things when only like-minded people post (much as I love to read what they have to say). And Seattle-- dude, you crack me up. Nice "Casino" reference.