Some interesting points: The House voted 238-187 despite a veto threat from Bush to block the part of the anti-terrorism law that allows the government to investigate the reading habits of terror suspects.
If the people want this stuff repealed, he should allow it to pass, not veto. He is in office to do the will of the people, IMO. But wait, you say, it keeps us safe - no doubt it's reeled in countless bad guys right? Wrong....
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told Congress in April that the government has never used the provision to obtain library, bookstore, medical or gun sale records.
So they don't even use it, it must not be too helpful. What offends me is not that they could use it to investigate a terrorist, but parts of the patriot act hand law enforcement the keys to the whole country, unchecked. They can enter your house without telling you and without a warrant. They can spy on your book habits, watch your actions on the internet, and wire tap you without a warrant. I know this isn't used against most Americans on a daily basis, I am not an alarmist, but it can be any time they deem necessary.
My question is this, do you think it is time for the patriot act, that was rushed into law post 9/11 by lawmakers (many of whom didn't even read it), to be modified (not repealed, I know we need security)? Or, is Bush right in threatening a veto and saying we need to keep it as is? If you feel that way, please explain why.
Here's why I don't like certain provisions. IMO, what makes this country great is freedom and democracy - if we give that up, than what are we fighting for? Politicians? If we give up our basic freedoms, then our way of life isn't worth defending because we already lost it. That's what I think - go ahead and school me, if you can!
ANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1253 times:
OK, personally, I'm not worried about the guvment checking into the magazines I read or the internet sites I visit or tapping my phone or anything else. I don't break the law, so I don't think I have any concerns. Besides, if the guvment wants to hear my several times weekly conversations with my daughter and listen all about the frickin' corn in Iowa, let 'em have at it.
I think certain provisions however are out of bounds, and push the limits of the Constitution. They need review and reassessment. Perhaps revocation. As a whole, however, it's a fairly decent Act. Now, is the time for some tweaking, serious tweaking.