NEWS: Conservatives Jump on Anti-Patriot Act Bandwagon

POLITICS: Conservatives Jump on Anti-Patriot Act Bandwagon

Even amidst the jingoistic hysteria that swept the nation briefly following the 9/11 attacks, many progressives were aghast when the USA Patriot Act was passed through Congress with barely enough time to have the legislators read the front page. Not because progressives support terrorists, as some "commentators" suggest, but because the vague wording of the law outlining limitations of how terrorists are defined and how it was to be enforced gave law enforcement far more leeway than most people, liberal or conservative, would normally be comfortable with. Since its passage it has remained a popular target for Democrats and Libertarians but more traditional conservatives have more or less stayed silent on the subject. However, that is starting to change, as poor screening based on the Patriot Act is defining refugees as terrorists and preventing their immigration to the US, some of whom fought alongside US soldiers.

Welcome to... 2002. But better late than never, and having conservatives groups support the Democratic congress as it attempts to change the Patriot Act away from its current Kafka-inspired form will be a major help in letting people know this isn't just a partisan political issue.

An example of just who is being affected by the Patriot Act clearly illustrate how poorly conceived the original language in it was.

Some thanks for helping out in Laos.

Fortunately prominent conservatives are openly talking about how the Democratic takeover will help fix this problem - something which would have been tantamount to treason in the eyes of many Republicans just a few years ago, but is a testament to the changing fortunes of team Bush.

Long overdue. It's about time this turd of a piece of legislation were put to rest and something better replaced it. Certainly the threat of terrorism is frightening and the US needs to do what it can to prevent future terrorist attacks. But the Patriot Act was the wrong answer, it was another example of a quick and easy but poorly conceived fix that did little to fix anything. Ironically, if left in its current form it will likely end up hamstringing law enforcement who use it as a justification to arrest suspected terrorists, since judicial appeals that show how their civil rights were trampled in the process could end up being the "technicality" that sets them free.

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Ben Franklin agrees...way back in 1759!

Amen.

...last bit, as i could go off on this forever...

great site to wade into. so, too, the center for constituional rights in ny, national lawyers guild, the like.

www.bordc.org

Clearly a new act is required, one which can tell the difference between good terrorists and bad terrorists. I'm only being half sarcastic when I say that. People will always support "freedom fighters", so the war against terror was bound to develop noticeable cracks on a frequent basis.

One of the parades, on the first St Patrick's day after 9/11, was lead by a convicted IRA bomber. I wonder if they still do that.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

OK...so this is what franklin actually said...to david hume in a letter about the pa govt.

but you get the drift...

As per usual, the conservatives are displaying thier "too little, too late" mindset. Where was the outrage and backlash from them in 2001?

That's a good question, and an even better one for all the Democrats who signed off on this without so much as a second glance.

Yeah, those evil Democrat Party types! Let's kick the bastards out! Wait - what?

They weren't given a second glance at the legislation they "signed off" on, genius. The way the act was passed was highly irregular, and in the DeLay Congress the minority party was habitually shut out of all input and most review. Democrats were not responsible for the Patriot Act. The baby fascists who wrote it were responsible.

Clearly the Republican sheep deserve the lionshare of the blame, to mix a metaphor, but there's little justification for giving the Dems a free pass. In the Senate, 1 Dem didn't vote and 1 Dem voted against the original bill. In the House, 145 voted for it, while 62 Dems voted against.

in 2006, only 9 Dems and 1 independent in the Senate, and 124 (vs 66) Dems in the House voted against extending the bill, albeit a slightly watered down version.

That leaves a pretty good number of democrats who were not only given a second glance, but a second chance, and still voted for the bill.

Are you drunk?

That depends. Are you stupid?

I'll take that as a 'yes'.

Likewise. Of course, you're wrong. But that doesn't seem unusual.

You are absolutely right in this. And it is an object lesson in what happens when we let fear control our political process. Dems generally supported this bill - with notable asshole exceptions like Lieberman - because either A) they were given bad information about what it did and did not wade into it or B) (and more probably) were fearful that they would be labeled as "soft" terror.

Neither is excusable - but we need to be clear that many of the provisions of the PA were simply extentions of the procedural techniques already widely used in organized crime cases, many of which came into being under the Clinton Administration. Much more important than the act itself (or its extension) is recent legislation that broadens the defnition of "terrorist" to some who threatens commerce or profits - essentially turning civil disobedience into a major felony.

Rights are not "taken" they erode. And the erosion began in 1798 with the Alien and Sedition acts. What people have never seemed to get is that it is a lot easier to keep a right than it is to get it back.

Sadly I believe that whatever happens with PA, the rights that have been abrogated since 2001 will never be regained.

"What's the point of truth or beauty or knowledge when anthrax bombs are popping all around you? People were ready to have even their appetites controlled then. Anything for a quiet life. One can't have something for nothing. Happiness has got to be paid for." Aldous Huxley %u2013 Brave New World

Welcome to our Brave New World

Too true. I would guess that, unfortunately, a majority of Americans would vote to give up their rights in order to feel safer. It's a fairly trivial task to induce [greater] fear, since threats in fact exist. (Threats don't need to be invented, just exaggerated.)

Much of the discourse in the country, driven by media, the left and the right, politicians, pundits, and the populace included, is that rights and what's right, should be subject to majority opinion.

Well, it was passed right after 9/11. It was a different political landscape, then. The Liebermann wing of the Democratic Party was ascendant, and there was a strong incentive on everyone's part to present a united front. I mean, they hadn't even counted the bodies, yet. Moreover, as I mentioned, the Congressional leadership pulled a classic bullshit partisan maneuver with no opportunity to review or debate prior to the vote being called.

That being said, my Representative voted against it, and I'm proud of him for it. He represented the views of his constituents accurately.

Part of what burned me up about DrStinkypants's whiny partisan sniping was that there was opposition on the left. He was just trying to make liberals look like retroactive hypocrites for no better reason than that he's a Republican. I was probably out of line. But I'm not at all sure it was unmerited.

Here, here! My rep, Barbara Lee, has also consistently voted against Bush Administration's absurd policies.

While my - actually Israel's - Senator, Joseph LIE-berman. Has been Bush's asshole buddy from the very beginning.

It disgusts me no end that this sorry fucking excuse for a Democrat got re-elected by co-opting the Republican vote.

He is almost worse than Bush - at least Bush is being true to his party's mandate.

The Lieberman situation sucks, but I think it's pretty debatable that Bush is being true to conservative principles. I think it's a complete mystery why conservatives have continued to support him, other than perhaps reflecting their cattle mentality. In the recent past, many conservatives wanted smaller less intrusive govt, "fiscal responsibility", no "nation-building."

In California, Silicon Valley, Orange County, there's a whole gaggle of "I'm socially liberal, but fiscally conservative" Repubs, who finally, I think, represent the more recent collapse of support for Bush.

Yeah, Lieberman's disgusting as a Democrat, but if you think of him as a Republican, he's not so bad. I've gotten tired of hatin' on him, myself. Besides, all of our Senators voted for the Patriot Act except Feingold (and Landrieu on a technicality).

Just a point of clarification - because I basically agree with what you say here - but I no longer consider the Republican party to represent the interests of true conservatives. So, my point about "his party's mandate" stands.

LIE-berman has voted for every aspect of the violation of basic rights and military adventurism of the Bush administration. Frankly, as it relates to foreign policy, I no longer see him as representing America at all. He is Israel's representative in the American Congress.

and I don't hate him - I don't hate any one - including Bush. I consider it wasted energy; particularly when it comes to politics. In my small political career, I have worked with and accomplished things with people who disgust me politically and otherwise. Polarization is a luxury we cannot afford in politics - on any level.

That's one of my favorite quotes, and you would be surprised how many people have never heard it

You'd be even more surprised by the number of people who disagree with it.

Not to mention that most people who really disagree would pretend not to.