Remembering History


It's not all the Republican's fault
Warren Meyer over at Coyote Blog posted a link to this statement from the ACLU.

We unusual allies stand here again today to urge the House of Representatives to reject this bald attempt to give even more power tofederal law enforcement agencies. To do otherwise would be to make a mockery of the Constitution and the freedoms it ensures all Americans.

All 25 organizations who signed this letter agree that this bill goes too far. Whether we are pro-gun groups like the Gun Owners of America ethnic groups like the Irish National Caucus, religious groups like the Friends Committee on National Legislation, or privacy groups like the Electronic Privacy Information Center: we agree that secret evidence can not be the basis of a deportation order; and that the Executive Branch can not be vested with an imperial-like authority to bar Americans from supporting the legal activities of groups designated "terrorist" organizations. We will not tolerate a return to the bad old days of McCarthyism, when associations and membership in a group, instead of activities, was the basis for governmental action against a person. The so-called "compromise" terrorism bill includes each of these provisions and will not protect civil liberties.

The biggest "surprise" here is the date, December 6, 1995.

So yes, Clinton wanted to be tough on terrorism.

The Patriot Act was kicking around in various forms long before Clinton was elected though. Over the years the justification has changed, but never the craving to do an end run around the Constitution.

For all of President Bush's posturing, I've yet to see a single thing accomplished by the Patriot Act that could not have been done with existing law prior to 9-11. The Department of Homeland Security is a joke, airport screening can include strip searches, and the reasons for the intelligence czar were the EXACT same ones used to create the National Security Council and the Central Intelligence Agency before that.

That was the issue that the Democrats should have used against Bush. That was the thing they could take to the bank.

Only one small, tiny, little almost insignificant problem.

They wanted the end run around the Constitution too.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Tue - September 12, 2006 at 06:46 AM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved