Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why did Kerry & Edwards vote for the Patriot Act?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
For PaisAn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:08 AM
Original message
Why did Kerry & Edwards vote for the Patriot Act?
I really would like to know if either candidate has answered this question. Can any of their supporters justify this vote? Please, stating that all other Senators except Feingold also voted in favor does not answer the question. Those other Senators are not running for President and their votes do not exonerate Kerry & Edwards
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Monte Carlo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
1. But surely the 99 Senators voting for it hints at a common cause.
I mean, I myself was genuinely spooked after 9-11. I was wary to walk by the tall buildings in the financial district of Boston for a while afterwards out of fear that a jet would be crashing into one of them above my head. Fear can be a powerful unifying force, and even I was warming to Bush a little bit around that time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
For PaisAn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. So it was fear?
Was that the common cause? They voted for something they hadn't read out of fear, essentially waiving our liberty. That frightens me about these two candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cuban_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Edwards not only READ it, he wrote it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corporatewhore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. thats even worse all of tthose arab americans who are being tortured
and jailed with out being charged or tried were probably evil doers aany way
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Is tortured perhaps a bit harsh?
Do you have any figures on Arab Americans being tortured or just a suspicion that they are?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DuctapeFatwa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #7
14. The regime prefers to call it "intensive interrogation"

The Patriot Act is an important tool to empower law enforcement to intensively interrogate you and your family because it is a new era and a very different kind of war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #7
32. I know of one
named Chaplain Yee who was kept in solitary, not allowed to practice his religion (they wouldn't tell him the direction to Mecca, which is important in the daily prayers), and, in the end, was found not to have done espianage. Instead, they are accusing him of adultery, which has caused his family stress (which is the point; this type of charge is not made when the alleged transgression takes place between soldiers of the same or similar rank).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HFishbine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #7
34. Glad you asked
(CBS) There are credible complaints that Arab and Muslim immigrants were beaten in federal detention, says an internal Justice Department report obtained by a newspaper.

Over the six-month period that ended in June, the Justice Department's inspector general found 34 complaints of rights violations that appeared credible, reports The New York Times. Some of the charges have yet to be fully investigated. Not all the complaints concerned physical abuse.


<snip>

It follows another report by the inspector general that found "significant problems" in the Bush administration's actions toward 762 foreigners held on immigration violations after Sept. 11. The FBI took too long to determine whether they were involved with terrorism, as dozens endured "lock-down" conditions 23 hours each day and slept under bright lights, the report found.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/21/attack/main56...


In addition, there is at least one documented case of US authorities extraditing an Arab-Canadian in this country, not back to Canada, but to Syria where he was tortured as he had warned he would be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HFishbine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #4
23. I'm confused
are you touting that about your candidate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #23
26. me. too
yesterday, Edwards supporters said he didn't write it. It was in the Top Ten Lies about Edwards. So did he or didn't he write it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cuban_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #23
46. No.
I'm simply dispelling the notion that he somehow voted for it without reading it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Monte Carlo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #2
11. It was part of it, yes.
Don't underestimate the national mood at the time, but fear was not all of it. Sometimes a show of unity is needed. The Patriot Act is not all bad - it contains clauses that allows law enforcement to go after terrorist financing easier, longer prison sentences for the convicted, etc. It's when laws-are-obstacles AG's like Ashcroft get a hold of clauses and start using them against American citizens and strip clubs for their wildest fantasies that there's a problem. Interpretation is everything in law.

But back to the fear, it was a mistake, but it's a sin of weakness, not malice. You cannot fault the nation for its fear forever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #1
31. Fear is not a good enough reason to attack the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cuban_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
3. The legislation itself needs 'tweaking'.
The fundamental problem with the Patriot Act is not the law itself, but with how Asscraft has chosen to interpret it. The legislation is fundamentally sound, and was an appropiste response to our post 9-11 security copnsiderations. The fact that 99 senators DID support it should say a great deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
For PaisAn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. Such drastic legislation
must not be written and approved when it is written in a manner that allows someone like Ashcroft to trample our rights. The legislation cannot just assume or hope that it will be interpreted properly. That's my point. To vote for it is to waive our guarentee of liberty. I don't think it is justified because 99 Senators voted for it.

"The fact that 99 Senators DID support it should say a great deal".

Yes, it certainly does say a great deal, none of it good. Again, those votes do not exonerate Kerry & Edwards. And they're not running for President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cuban_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. We know they're not running for President.
Edited on Sat Feb-07-04 10:29 AM by Cuban_Liberal
Would one prefer a candidate who wets his finger and tests which way the wind is blowing before each vote, or one who votes his or her conscience? The fact that 99 DID support it says much, much more than some people would prefer to admit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
For PaisAn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. Your sig line says it all
Your sig line contradicts what you are saying.
Contrary to your post, I think their vote demontrates that they did wet their finger and test how the wind was blowing and that's how voted. This was not a vote of conscience, it was a vote of conformity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cuban_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #17
24. So say you.
I would wager that Sen. Edwards would disagree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
For PaisAn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #24
28. Yes
I would wager that you are correct. Senator Edwards would disagree
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jersey Devil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #3
18. and voted for it only after inserting a sunset provision
Edited on Sat Feb-07-04 10:36 AM by Jersey Devil
Of course they recognized it needed tweaking, as you pointed out, thus the sunset provision insisted on by the Democrats so that they could try to fix what was wrong with it later by letting the law expire unless voted upon a second time to confirm it.

The Patriot Act is needed to some extent. But parts of it were in doubt then and have proven they have to go since. I think it was a good compromise in a very tense situation to sunset it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
For PaisAn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #18
25. Good point
It was wise to at least include a sunset provision. But who knows if they will be able to fix it, that is quite a risk they took.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #3
30. No, it isn't fundamentally sound.
Any law that is open to interpretation is fundamentally flawed and none more so this abomination. The fact that 99 senators did support it does say a great deal, it says that senators are not immune from cowardly , knee jerk reactions. You do know that not a single senator even botthered to read the legislation before voting on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HFishbine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #3
37. Fundementally sound?
The ACLU, for one, strongly disagrees. But why should democrats listen to one of those "lefty" organizations.

"Just 45 days after the September 11 attacks, with virtually no debate, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act. Many parts of this sweeping legislation take away checks on law enforcement and threaten the very rights and freedoms that we are struggling to protect. For example, without a warrant and without probable cause, the FBI now has the power to access your most private medical records, your library records, and your student records... and can prevent anyone from telling you it was done."

Much more here: http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=1212...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corporatewhore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
5. Iam not giving them a pass because kucinich had the forsight not to
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cindyw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
8. Why did Wellstone?
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
For PaisAn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. Why did Kerry & Edwards
That was the question
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Monte Carlo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. I think you underestimate the national mindset at the time...
... of the Patriot Act, and it was not completely rational. When normally principled liberal Senators like Wellstone, Kennedy, Boxer, etc. voted for it, it should be a tell-tale that something was off at the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corporatewhore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #15
35. but kucinich thows off their grading curve
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Monte Carlo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #35
38. You can't expect purity every time.
Because you are setting yourself up for endless disappointment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corporatewhore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #38
42. not purity just common sense
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Monte Carlo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #42
50. Fear is the mindkiller, especially in politics.
Kucinich might have had his crystal ball, but no one knew that the Bush Administration and Ashcroft would have distorted the intention and the spirit of the Patriot Act so badly at the time. Anthrax was being sent through the mail, we were still just starting to sift through the rubble of the World Trade Center towers, Richard Reid almost blew up another jet with his shoe, another plane lost its rudder shortly after take off for mysterious reasons... a lot was happening. We didn't know where the attacks were coming from.

The most lethal attack on U.S. soil since the Civil-friggin'-War was accomplished with boxcutters!! How secure is our security when you take out 3,000 American civilans, destroy the World Trade Center twin towers, and severely damage the PENTAGON with tiny little razor blades!? The country did not feel safe at the time, and maybe, just maybe, a few of the Senators - including some of our best allies on the hill - thought taking the opportunity to unify and take action was a good idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
10. This issue keeps coming up

and here's what I wrote about it last night:


No matter who the nominee is, if these people who hate the

PATRIOT Act can't see that there's a big difference between Bush, whose AG proposed the act, and senators who were pushed into approving it in the aftermath of 9/11, I think they are hopeless. Didn't they notice that almost everyone was suddenly turning to Bush as the leader who would save them, waving flags, and demanding retribution? I heard too many people say they'd give up some freedom to catch the evildoers.

I wish all the Dems had had Dennis Kucinich's courage and voted against the war and the PATRIOT Act. I wish more than anything that just one senator had had the courage to stand up and support the Black Caucus three years ago. If just one had done that, it's possible that Gore would be in office and none of the horrible things of the past three years would have happened.

I think that if Dennis Kucinich had been a senator, he would have stood up with the Black Caucus (I think they're all in the Progressive Caucus, too.) But there are damn few people who will put their careers on the line that way.
There are many reasons to vote against Bush, and conservatives should be able to recognize them. The man is not a traditional Republican fiscal conservative and everyone knows it. Pat Buchanan and other conservatives are complaining about Bush's deficit spending.

Bob Barr, my former congressman who's about as right wing as they get, was very upset about the PATRIOT Act and said it was just used to get some things that DOJ and FBI had been wanting for a long time. Before he ran for Congress, he was a prosecutor so I think he knowns whereof he speaks on that. The Bushistas got his district redrawn and he lost to the other Republican (the one who's never criticized Bush) and Barr is now working for the ACLU, something we'd have never seen w/o this Bushbaby in the White House.

I wish all the candidates would promise to repeal the PATRIOT Act . Why won't they? Any provisions in it that are actually needed could be enacted in a new bill, after debate in Congress.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DuctapeFatwa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #10
16. If the senators are unable to think for themselves in a time of crisis

is that an indication that they would make good Presidents?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Monte Carlo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. Well what do you want? Nobody's perfect.
We have the luxury of hindsight now, but it was not just business-as-usual at the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DuctapeFatwa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #20
27. LOL I have to concede, it is hard to defend abrogating the Constitution

and even harder to defend signing legislation one has not read.

You do not have an easy job, and "nobody's perfect" is probably about the best argument you will be able to come up with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Monte Carlo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #27
36. You are asking for a saint.
And we're fresh out of saints. I don't want to defend anything, I just think you should not hold candidates up to near-impossible standards.

And how do you know who read what, anyway?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DuctapeFatwa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #36
45. You are indeed defending something. Quite a large something, in fact

And I do not question your sincerity, nor do I suggest that your view will change when your family is seized and disappeared into the "interrogation facility."

Please post a list of the senators who claimed to have read the Patriot Act prior to signing it.

As you will know from your own perusal of it, it is quite lengthy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Monte Carlo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #45
54. I am asking you to stop shaming the Democrats for past weaknesses...
... because it is an ultimately futile pursuit. Blame them for their mistakes all day long, but be consistent. Blame all of them. You'll just have to find yourself a new political party if you can't ever forgive.

My family will not be seized and disappear into an interrogation facility, spare me the drama. I don't think you give this country enough credit.

Like I said, the document itself is long, with all sorts of cut-and-paste amendments to previous laws, which then necessitates a re-evaluation of the old laws. The clock was ticking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DuctapeFatwa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. Support for the Patriot Act is bipartisan. You have the choice to read it

or not before deciding to support or oppose it. Your employees, your elected officials, have the choice to read all legislation, or not, before signing it, regardless of what it says.

I support your right to defend the abrogation of the Constitution to the best of your ability, and I have in fact acknowledged that it is not an easy task.

It would appear that defending the regime is becoming increasingly difficult, and if the arguments presented seem a little less than substantial, that is hardly the fault of those tasked with the unenviable mission.

The families of all the disappeared said the same thing you do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HFishbine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #16
41. Exactly!
It amazes me that so many of the arguments for certain candidates revolve around excuses for their poor judgement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teryang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #16
52. Exactly!
Our Congress has turned into a pathetic gutless non-entity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #16
59. The other side of the coin is that elected representatives

should represent those who elected them, who in September 2001 seemed to have been calling for desperate measures.

How do they decide, if their intelligence and conscience tells them one thing while the public wants another?

I was thinking about this in regard to IWR, too. If someone in Congress truly believed that Saddam was a danger to us, were they right to vote for it, even though so many of us opposed it?

There are no easy answers to the really difficult questions in life.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MAlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
19. OMFG!
This has been covered ad infinitum!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #19
58. Well, thanks to Kerry & Co, we now have the FBI investigating us!
Their cowardice, our hides!

Group fights anti-war inquiry
Lawyers move to block subpoenas
By JEFF ECKHOFF and MARK SIEBERT

02/07/2004


Lawyers worked Friday to derail a federal grand jury investigation into an anti-war conference held three months ago at Drake University.

Federal officials have refused to say why they want information about the conference, the legal group that hosted it and four Des Moines-area peace activists involved.

But officials with the National Lawyers Guild, host of the Nov. 15 conference, said they intend to move Monday to block the subpoena, one of five delivered this week by the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force.

Bruce Nestor, a Minneapolis lawyer representing the guild, said he will argue that the subpoena has a "chilling effect on the rights of people to associate with the National Lawyers Guild and with the rights of our members."

http://desmoinesregister.com/news/stories/c4788993/2347...

Feds Win Right to War Protesters' Records
1 hour, 12 minutes ago Add U.S. National - AP to My Yahoo!

BY RYAN J. FOLEY, Associated Press Writer

DES MOINES, Iowa - In what may be the first subpoena of its kind in decades, a federal judge has ordered a university to turn over records about a gathering of anti-war activists.

In addition to the subpoena of Drake University, subpoenas were served this past week on four of the activists who attended a Nov. 15 forum at the school, ordering them to appear before a grand jury Tuesday, the protesters said.

Federal prosecutors refuse to comment on the subpoenas.

In addition to records about who attended the forum, the subpoena orders the university to divulge all records relating to the local chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, a New York-based legal activist organization that sponsored the forum.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&nci...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frances Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
21. I was very against the Patriot Act
but then I was reading DU.

If I have a choice between the man who wants to continue the Patriot Act and the man who wants to let it die, who should I vote for?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HFishbine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #21
43. If those were your only two choices
Edited on Sat Feb-07-04 11:17 AM by HFishbine
The answer would be obivous. But since your choices are not so limited, how about voting for somone who was at least as informed as some people on an Internet message board?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheilaT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
22. The Patriot Act
was hastily put together and passed without being read. Much of the act consists of changes to other legislation. Here's one example:

Section 203 of the International Emergency Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1702) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) at the end of subparagraph (A) (flush to that subparagraph), by striking `; and' and inserting a comma and the following:
`by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States;';


You can read the entire Patriot Act at your leisure at this site:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

I, for one, did not succumb to the national hysteria and knew that abrogating our Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, was NOT an appropriate response to what happened on September 11, 2001.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DuctapeFatwa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #22
29. Thanks SheilaT. Anyone who has not read it, should do so

Just because your employees, your elected representatives, chose not to does not mean that you shouldn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #22
33. I agree. The laws that needed to be implemented didn't need a Patriot Act
to do so.

It seems PLENTY of lawmakers were with Bush on this and some even SUGGESTED a re-evaluation of the Bill of Rights shortly after 9-11.


Dean's comments on civil liberties cause alarm

September 14, 2001

MONTPELIER Gov. Howard Dean's call for a re-evaluation of some of America's civil liberties following this week's terrorist attacks was criticised Thursday by a Vermont Law School professor.

Good God, Vermont Law School Professor Michael Mello said when read the remarks Dean made at a Wednesday news conference. It's terribly irresponsible for the leader of our state to be saying stuff like that right now.
Benson Scotch, the head of the Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said it was simply too soon after the attacks to engage in the sort of debates Dean called for.

Dean said Wednesday he believed that the attacks and their aftermath would require a re-evaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties. I think there are going to be debates about what can be said where, what can be printed where, what kind of freedom of movement people have and whether it's OK for a policeman to ask for your ID just because you're walking down the street
>>>>>>>>>
http://rutlandherald.com/News/Story/33681.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redsoxliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
39. So if they vote for it without reading it
that should excuse their mistake?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lcordero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
40. they voted for the legislation so that they can use it and abuse it
once they became president. Legislation with broad powers are meant to be used and abused. Having the Patriot Act and not using it amounts to having a car, a tank full of gas, the car keys, and being told not to use the car.

There is no reasoning that can ever justify the Patriot Act.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redsoxliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #40
44. I think that's a little bit of a push
but they were certainly short-sighted in passing a Bill that takes away so very many of our civil liberties.

Dean opposed it, no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lcordero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #44
48. Nope
He didn't oppose it in any way, shape or form. As a matter of fact, he was calling for a Patriot Act.

http://rutlandherald.com/News/Story/33681.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redsoxliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #48
49. He wasn't calling for one
he said that people will be debating these issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lcordero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #49
51. Yes he was
Edited on Sat Feb-07-04 12:03 PM by lcordero
Even the mention of a "debate" on civil liberties means that he wants me to give up something. I feel that he is unsuitable to becoming president and I will not vote for him.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgpenn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
47. because they are both typical...
Washington Insider politicans!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cuban_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #47
53. It always amusing to listen to candidates who didn't HAVE TO vote....
... defend, in the clear, bright light of hindsight, how they WOULD HAVE voted. It takes no great genuis or insight to know NOW what you MIGHT HAVE done then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
revcarol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
56. Now, both want to tweak it...
and it is fundamentally unsound.

The sunset provisions some are citing do not apply to some of the most egregious portions of the bill.

Congress does not have oversight or even the right to determine if carrying out a provision of the bill has prevented ANY terror.

So dump it, let the disappeared whose families are in agony out of prison, and start over RATIONALLY.

I DO NOT FORGET THOSE WHO TRASHED OUR LIBERTIES.One day I may forgive their ineptness, their pandering for votes, their crass anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bigotry, but not yet.

"Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee."

We are all diminished by the Patriot Act. The MINIMUM REPARATION that could help is for BOTH candidates to call for its total repeal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Baconfoot Donating Member (653 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
57. uh - Edwards wrote the SUNSET PROVISION of the Patriot Act. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sleipnir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-07-04 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
60. No justification
Bush enablers, rubber stamp all kinds of legistlation. No explaination will ever be given. One can count on the stregth of the might of the opposition before the end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 22nd 2014, 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC