frommycolddeadhands
Regular Member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUB4_R71vwE
One of the first questions asked to the Republican candidates in the Nov debates was about the patriot act, and whether or not those powers should be expanded. (youtube link, the question gets asked at 04:36, and the candidates answer in turn after that.)
I was mortified that most of the candidates on the stage (who are supposed to be about LIMITING government power) agreed that basic liberties should be tossed out the window in order to aid the fight against terrorism. Even Gingrich (who I usually agree with) said that there was a difference between crime, and terrorism, and therefore the gov't should basically be given blanket authority to do whatever they want to as long as it is under the auspices of fighting terrorism.
I have huge issues with this. I'm all about whuppin' the tar out of the Al-Queda and tearing down the Taliban's meat-house, but this really bothers me. First step toward a police state IMO. In the age of terrorism the gov't certainly has a responsibility to protect its people, and they need the tools to do that. I get it. That being said, however:
Cops should still need warrants. People should still have the right to a fair and speedy trial. People should not be able to be detained indefinately without charges filed. People should still be allowed to have an advocate/lawyer present when being interrogated by the police.
This just really bugs me, and aside from Ron Paul (who I don't think would be a very good president) nobody else seems to remember what the heck the American constitution is all about....
Comments are welcome, I'd like to know what everyone else thinks. I'm trying to get some perspective on this mess.
One of the first questions asked to the Republican candidates in the Nov debates was about the patriot act, and whether or not those powers should be expanded. (youtube link, the question gets asked at 04:36, and the candidates answer in turn after that.)
I was mortified that most of the candidates on the stage (who are supposed to be about LIMITING government power) agreed that basic liberties should be tossed out the window in order to aid the fight against terrorism. Even Gingrich (who I usually agree with) said that there was a difference between crime, and terrorism, and therefore the gov't should basically be given blanket authority to do whatever they want to as long as it is under the auspices of fighting terrorism.
I have huge issues with this. I'm all about whuppin' the tar out of the Al-Queda and tearing down the Taliban's meat-house, but this really bothers me. First step toward a police state IMO. In the age of terrorism the gov't certainly has a responsibility to protect its people, and they need the tools to do that. I get it. That being said, however:
Cops should still need warrants. People should still have the right to a fair and speedy trial. People should not be able to be detained indefinately without charges filed. People should still be allowed to have an advocate/lawyer present when being interrogated by the police.
This just really bugs me, and aside from Ron Paul (who I don't think would be a very good president) nobody else seems to remember what the heck the American constitution is all about....
Comments are welcome, I'd like to know what everyone else thinks. I'm trying to get some perspective on this mess.