Is it "ok" to demand that the candidates speak up re: PATRIOT Act?

[He loved Big Brother]

I don't want this thread to get hijacked by flames, so I will just copy what I said in another thread regarding the PATRIOT Act...without mentioning any candidates names... S

eriously, this issue could open the door for me actually feeling good about voting for any Dem who voted for it, were they to renounce it (with FACTS and EXAMPLES to back up why they disapprove, of course.)

From another thread: "But the Constitution is really all we have, and voting to nullify the very thing that defines us and protects us makes me wonder why that person deserves to sit in the Oval Office...if any Senators running for President renounce it, I will vote for them. And I mean make it a centerpiece talking point that it is one of the worst things to happen to our freedom, and explain how they felt "protective" at the time...our representatives are human, they freak out and make impulse decisions just like anybody. But they can redeem themsleves, should they feel the desire to do so, while running. And I think (this is just what *I* think) if you want to be America's leader, you should feel the desire to keep the Constitution intact. Is that too much to ask? I am not a one issue voter, but it's the CONSTITUTION! And I want it back! Especially in lieu of the possibility that the SCOTUS will become even more conservative."

Please, honest non-biased opinions (haha), or as close to such as you can get. ;-)

I *am* bashing the fact that this couldn't have passed without the Democratic party helping, but I also point out optimism that a Dem can redeem himself while running for president, and maybe even pick up a few independents' votes for it.

[DUreader]

1. I am with you, If they Don't, I'm getting the F**K outta Dodge

Period.

[Desertrose]

2. This is one of the things Kucinich is running on...repealing

the Patriot Act!!!
He has been speaking out & fighting this since DAY ONE!! and he voted against it!!


http://www.kucinich.us/

DENNIS KUCINICH: THE PROGRESSIVE CHOICE

As a candidate for President, I offer a different vision for America, one which separates me from the other candidates. I am the only candidate for President who will take this country away from fear and war and tax giveaways, and use America's peace dividend for guaranteed health care for all, ending health care for profit. I am the only candidate who will stop the privatization of social security and bring the retirement age back to 65.

As President, I will cancel NAFTA and the WTO, restore our manufacturing jobs, save our family farms, create full employment programs, create new jobs by rebuilding our cities and schools. As President, I will repeal the Patriot Act to regain for all Americans the sacred right of privacy in our homes, our libraries, our schools.

This is a grassroots campaign to take back America. Join me from your cities, your towns, your farms and your campuses. (Presidential Debate, ABC News, 5/3/03)

Dennis is the man!!!
Peace
DR

[lkinsale]

3. This is a concern

I'm very interested in this topic because the guy I'm supporting wrote parts of the Patriot Act:

As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in the 107th Congress, Graham led efforts to improve our nation's intelligence agencies. Since the horrific events of September 11th, 2001, he has been a leader in refocusing and strengthening the nation's counterterrorism efforts.

He was a primary author of the USA PATRIOT Act, which President George W. Bush signed into law in October 2001. Among other steps, it mandates greater information sharing among foreign intelligence and domestic law-enforcement agencies to help fight a unified war on terrorism.

Bob Graham Senate Biography

So, not denying that, this is what I have found subsequently:

A spokesman for Graham said he wrote portions of the law that have not been controversial, such as sections that require criminal investigators to share information about possible terrorists with foreign intelligence analysts. Graham also wrote sections that are designed to improve the sharing of information among federal, state and local agencies.

Graham said this week that he is concerned about the implementation of other sections of the law. "I think the attorney general has gone beyond what the Congress intended, particularly in areas such as disparate treatment and what amounts to a form of racial profiling against Americans of Islamic background."

Graham said Congress should conduct "a serious review of what has happened under this act." He said he opposes an expanded bill dubbed "Patriot 2" and opposes an effort to make the current law permanent. It is due to expire in 2005.

Graham's role in Patriot Act

So, is that reasonable? A serious review of implementation, opposition to an expanded bill and opposing making it permanent?

[revcarol]

4. The problem with one of those "non-controversial" sections he wrote:

"sharing of information among federal, state and local agencies," is that they are using this regarding any criminal offense, or possible criminal offense, or even no offense at all.

On the say-so of the feds, ALL agencies now have the right to snoop about anything.And the say-so of the feds doesn't have to be based on "probable cause" - even probable cause as low as that standard has been in some places.And the feds don't even have to get a warrant signed by a judge.

And the process can work the opposite way. Some local yokel can decide that someone or some group is suspicious, based on ?, and they can alert the feds and the state agencies to investigate.And there is no due process involved that direction.

Everyone wants all the state, fedral, and local people to be alert and to work on terrorism, but this particular "innocent" provision has opened up a PANDORA'S BOX.
IMHO, the whole thing needs to be scrapped and rewritten all over again very much more tightly.

And ALL SECTIONS MUST HAVE AN EXPIRATION DATE.
aND RECORDS AVAILABLE TO ALL CONGRESSPEOPLE MUST BE KEPT ON THE GOOD OR BAD EACH SECTION FOSTERED:1) did it make us safer by finding any terrorists? 2) what innocent people were harmed and what was done to redress their grievances?
and CONGRESS MUST HAVE THE STATUTORY DUTY TO INVESTIGATE AND MUST REVIEW EACH SECTION FOR EFFICIENCY AND UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AT LEAST EVERY SIX MONTHS.
AND Robert Byrd and other Constitutional scholars must be consulted in the re-writing and review. Even if a law is constitutional on its face, it can be applied unconstitutionally.(racial profiling, anyone?)

You probably guessed I am for Kucinich, and I am not trying to knock your candidate whom I admire for really trying to get real homeland security, but even the "innocent" provisions are not innocent. The candidates DO need to address the major destruction of the Bill of Rights, and they can't expect to be taken as a serious candidate unless they do.

P> S. only SOME sections of the unPatriotic Act have expiration dates . Some DON'T.

[lkinsale]

5. Good points

I think this whole issue is one of the thorniest and most painful of our day.

On the one hand, you have the obvious threats to civil liberties; I won't even bother to recount them. The library and bookstore record searching alone is extremely chilling.

On the other hand, you have the kind of thing Graham cites from the 9/11 report, where the CIA had two of the hijackers ID'd at an al-Quaeda planning meeting in Indonesia, but did not convey this info to Immigration or the FBI, so it fell through the cracks and they entered the country freely.

These "sides" seem utterly incompatible. Is there a workable place somewhere in the middle?

I think your ideas about reviewing and investigating the results of the act, and re-writing it, are very good. I'd like to think Graham would be in support of those ideas, but so far this one article is the only thing I've found that directly addresses it.

I decided to support Graham before I knew about his participation in writing the act. One of my main reasons was, and continues to be, the defeat of Bush, ousting of Ashcroft and appointment of decent judges. (He has a good history of judges from his gov terms in FL) A part of the defeat of Bush will be convincing the country that the Dem candidate does care about our interior security issues--from both sides, I think.

I've submitted a question about this to a conference call with Graham that I'm going to participate in this week. I don't know if I'll get an answer (not sure of the topics) but if I do I will certainly post it here.

******

Click to subscribe to Graham04 on Yahoo Groups

Contribute to Graham For President Enter "Laura Kinsale" as your BobCat


http://grahamchat.whitesandworks.com:80/chat/world/html/login.html

[johnkerryAriz04]

6. Thats why we need a Candidate that can win--> John kerry

[lkinsale]

7. Did Kerry vote against the Patriot Act?

Or is he in favor of repealing it?

[killbotfactory]

9. No and No.

Last time I checked, he said the only thing wrong with the patriot act was Ashcroft enforcing it.

[blm]

13. Kerry's OWN words...

>>>>
Opponents say the Patriot Act represents a major assault upon civil liberties. But Kerry said Ashcroft’s biggest threats to civil liberties don’t stem from the Patriot Act itself, but other sources, such as his “misinterpretation” of a 1938 law now being used to classify some terrorism suspects as “enemy non-combatants.”

Kerry said he doesn’t support Ashcroft’s recent request for additional powers to combat terrorism.

“We need to fix the things that are wrong with the Patriot Act, addressing concerns about civil liberties and privacy,” he said.

http://www.dreamwater.com/blueelf/prezKERRY.html

[mike_c]

8. this is a watershed issue for me...

...one of several, actually, but I WILL NOT vote for anyone who supports the USA PATRIOT Act, and in this instance I define "support" as having cast a congressional vote in favor of the PA. Mea culpas will help, if they exhibit sufficient regret AND a strong commitment to repeal the PA as a fundamental plank in the candidate's platform. The folks who voted for the PA were traitors, IMO.

[genius]

10. I'm really proud of Dennis for gettilng through the amendment

to eliminate the "sneak and peek" provisions. < For those not keeping up, it was his amendment to the commerce bill that passed the house last week.> Bush has threatened to veto the measure but they may have enough votes to over-ride in the House. Let's make sure the Senate backs up the amendment.

[The Sushi Bandit]

12. Dennis is the only "Full Time" congressman

of all the canidates. Look at their voting records and then look at his... he makes the effort to be there to vote for us!

[blm]

14. History will show

Dennis as one of the best congressmen of modern political history.

[carpetbagger]

11. Not if it costs us elections.

There are not enough votes to override a presidential veto. Talking about it might make us feel good, but civil liberties rarely win elections. It's history, not the electorate, that judges these types of things poorly. They come and go (Civil War arrests, Japanese-American internment, and the sundry Red scares), and history will at least say that the Democrats managed to get a sunset provision, allowing it to expire when hopefully we'll be able to take a sober look at the successes, failures, and threats of the bill.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

15. Of course it is OK to demand that the candidates give their position

Of course it is OK to demand that the candidates give their position but to demand that they make it a centerpiece talking point? Who made you campaign manager? That is a strategy question. Do you want the Democratic candidate to win, or just provide a soapbox for your views?

Have no doubt the question will be asked and answered repeatedly before November 2004. I find it a trifle self-important to say the candidate has to follow a particular strategy to gain your support.

[blm]

16. I think it's absolutely fair.

.

[LWolf]

17. Let me point out:

at least one candidate has spoken up, without needing encouragement or a pitchfork from behind. He's spoken up on the war in Iraq from the very first; he's spoken up clearly about the Patriot Act. He's spoken out strongly and clearly day after day after day. Let's give him some credit. If you want a candidate that won't hedge about where he stands, and that stands firmly opposed to * with his voice and his vote, support Dennis Kucinich.

[burr]

18. What about the Depart. of Homeland Defense?

I know Kucinich voted against the Patriot Act. But would he abolish this department, which I believe has become counterproductive to our nation's security and freedom?

And what about Al Sharpton, are these the only candidates that have spoken out on this issue? Should we not be supporting primary candidates who would be pushing a drastically different approach to fighting terrorism rather than currently used failed methods?