Can you vote for someone that voted for the PATRIOT ACT

[Cointelpro_Papers]

I cannot, and will no vote for anyone that voted for the PATRIOT ACT, or anyone that supports the PATRIOT ACT(USA). When I heard that their was only one person in all of the Democratic controled senate that voted against it, I instantly called my local Democratic group, or whatever you call it, and told them to take me off the list, I no longer wanted to be registered as a Democrat. Since then I've calmed down a little bit, but I did personally call my senators, and write them to them to piss off. Not to mention how I've contacted each of the candidates that voted for it.

So, how could anyone vote for someone that voted for the PATRIOT ACT? Could you? How could you?

[AnnabelLee]

1. You have good reason to be upset

However, if one refuses to vote for the Dem who voted for the Patriot Act, that increases the chance that the repub running against that Dem will win. The Patriot Act is a colossally bad & dangerous piece of legislation, one which never should have passed. Unfortunately, the vote took place quite soon after 9/11 & cooler heads did not prevail.

No one here is happy that their Senator/Representative voted for it. But I don't know of anyone else who would withhold their vote over this issue. I'm lucky--one of my Senators is the only one who voted against it.

[roguevalley]

2. one of my lame-oids said it was a dumb vote -'emotional voting'

and frankly, if you write them a SCATHING letter and
hold your nose, it beats the alternative if they are
a dem.

Make sure you write it and send it certified. That way
they will know you are PISSED.

[lcordero]

3. This is part of the reason why I find it hard to believe---

that Sen.Feingold didn't try to run for President. His profile would have been raised somewhat and he could have slammed the * Administration in a big way. I read one of his interviews, he used the word "Progressive" a lot which I happen to like. This guy could very well be the "Barry Goldwater of the Democratic Party". I think that he can return the Party to the Democratic values.

On Edit: My Congressman voted against it.:toast:

[LynneSin]

6. You mean the SAME Senator Feingold that VOTED for Ashcroft?

All the democrats on the Judiciary committee voted against John Ashcroft for Attorney General except one: Russ Feingold. At the time the committee was 12-12 between Dems & repukes and who knows if that would allow his nomination to go to the floor or not. But Feingold voted FOR Ashcroft giving him a 13-11 vote in the Judiciary and a trip to the Senate floor.

Personally, I'll vote for ANY senator that supported the Patriot Act any day of the week and twice on sundays over someone who has absolutely no fvcking excuse whatsoever to support a religious nutbag like Ashcroft. WE weren't at war and this was way before 9/11.

What's your excuse Feingold?

[lcordero]

9. Sen.Feingold's reason is explained in this article

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0101-04.htm

I have to agree with Sen.Feingold. Rejecting Ashcroft would give Republicans grounds to reject a nominee that a Democratic President has selected.

[LynneSin]

11. Edit Note: Don't even think that's a decent excuse for Feingold

I had to redo this message because you do not even know how pissed I am at Feingold for backing down on Ashcroft and that lameass excuse (the one you posted, I've read it direct from Feingold's website) as to why he supported Ashcroft in committee. And I knew I would never get to sleep until I said everything I felt about this issue!!

Everyday I come to Yahoo and I read about how democrat's cave when it comes to the important issues, well keep John Ashcroft out of the office of Attorney General was damn important and Feingold folded big time.

You think Bush is the first person in the White House to nominate someone controversial to their cabinet? I've got a great article from ABCNews about some of the more controversial nominations and many of those folks either step down on their own terms (or maybe from a nudge from the person that nominated them) when it was apparent that they were NOT going to pass committee. And some of those appointees were picked by Bill Clinton. DO you think there was some republican version of Feingold thinking that maybe we should give all of Clinton's nominees a chance since we wouldn't want them doing that to us???

Ashcroft has been and always will be wrong as Attorney General. He was a known religious fanatic who did everything in his power as a senator to make this country a Christian Taliban nation and is doing the same thing as Attorney GEneral. Feingold should have stuck with the democrats on this one. There was NO excuse for him to consider otherwise

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/confirmationcontroversies.html

[Aristus]

4. If he's running against the Chimp, the answer is YES.

Unequivocally. 'Nuff said.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

5. Even Paul Wellstone voted FOR the PATRIOT ACT...

and he's one of the most revered politicans on this board.

People were scared, and * easily manipulated their fears into voting for this heinous piece of un-constitutional drivel.

So, yes. I can vote for someone who voted for the PATRIOT ACT.
But that person won't be a republican.

[izzie]

7. Is Fiengold (sp) running. Most voted for it ?

Dean sure did not.And the man I can spell his name. Starts with a K. Sorry.

[Maddy McCall]

18. Dean didn't have the opportunity to vote for it...

therefore, his exemption is a moot point.

[grytpype]

8. To defeat Bush? YES!!!!!!

If we're ever going to clean up the horrible mess Bush has made of this country and the world, we must defeat him in 2004. I'm not going to punish an electable Dem candidate because of a vote he cast. Bush must go, that is priority no. 1.

[lcordero]

10. I would be happy if the Democrats would admit that it was a mistake---

then I feel we can move on.

[Zan_of_Texas]

13. It would be nice

if lots of the Dem candidates would promise to work to repeal it -- if they're elected or not. And not wait for the sunset provision to kick in. Dean didn't vote for the Patriot Act, but he wasn't in Congress, so he didn't vote against it either.

Course, if a Democrat is elected President, John Ashcroft gets a pink slip (no, not the kind J. Edgar Hoover wore....). That automatically makes the Patriot Act a little less awful, because Ashcroft is the main guy with say-so on how it's enforced.

I believe that the Patriot Act had already been cooked up before September 11th. It was over 300 pages long. Also, if memory serves, two of the top Dem Senators, Daschle and Leahy, had just been served up some anthrax letters post 9-11, and the House and the Senate were trying to carry on business outside their offices, without their normal computers and phones and desks. I saw some trying to office out of their car trunks in a parking lot within site of the Capitol, while their offices were being decontaminated (or bugged????).

So, a number of Senators have admitted they didn't read the whole Patriot Act, or much of it. Under the circumstances, I understand. But, they should renounce it, all together, now. Or, soon. They could use as their reason the fact that Ashcroft has refused to be forthcoming, after months of requests, about how the legislation has been used by DOJ. Or, they could use the compelling reason, which is that the thing has no place in a free society with our Constitution.

[maxanne]

25. it's much longer than 300 pages

I have the whole thing on a disc. The beginnning is 14,000 pages - and there's more - much more.

Oh, it was ready, sitting on a shelf waiting to be jump started. I believe there were last minute changes, too - so that no one really knew what they were voting for.

A number of the provisions are supposed to sunset in 2004. Naturally the facists want to make it permanent, and give us Patriot2 - with even more losses of freedom and due process. This campaign is a good time for the Democrats to speak up on this particular issue - especially the sneaky Patriot 2 - since at first Ashcroft denied there was any such thing in the works - and now it's slowly emerging from the facist closet.

Make 'em talk about it. In NH there's a group that are "birddogging" candidates when they appear - and asking tough questions. Keep their feet to the fire.

[cosmicdot]

27. was that a reasonable amount of time to throw such a big document

together ... seems to me, that document had to have been already in the assembly line if not already 'ready' ... the composing ... the vast details ... the proof-reading ... spell-check ... here, approved this ... now!

and, we'll call it the PATRRIOT Act ... that'll trap 'em good ...

Last one out to the front steps to sing 'God Bless America' is a rotten egg.

It would be nice to hear some denouncements, and accurate portrayal ... just titling a document which has an ancronym spelling "patriot" doesn't necessarily make it so ... we know that ... they know that ... start telling it like it is - plain and simple - please "lead"!

What would the Founding Fathers have done if sent a LOYALTY Act from the King? Take it, Patrick Henry ...

[gottaB]

31. yes yes yes

I could forgive the Senators and Gep out of sypmathy with their fears after the anthrax attacks, but if they want my enthusiastic vote they have to come clean and address the violations of civil liberties and what they're doing to do remedy it.

Until I see that, Moseley Braun and Kucinich are leading the race for my vote.

In the general, I'd be apt to defect if the Dems reiterated their support for PATRIOT or moved rightward on civil liberties. If they fencesit, that's a tough one. I'd have to analyze their statements and think long and hard about my vote.

For the health of the party, they have to get a strong civil liberties plank in the platform.

[Rowdyboy]

12. Absolutely yes...100% will...Definite

people should quit trying to split the party...

[Maddy McCall]

14. Oh how I agree...

While all this infighting is going on, and while some people are pointing retro-relevant posts, BushCo. is sneaking legislation under the radar to end overtime for a big segment of American workers. It is counterproductive to keep on about the Patriot Act, etc. We need to elect a Democrat to the presidency who will have the power to turn back the nationalistic legislation that was passed in the past couple of years. Look ahead, not behind!

[Cointelpro_Papers]

19. So what, we should just lay down

and let the Democrats do any god damn thing they want? The reason we're in this mess, isn't because people are trying to split the party, it's because Major democrats aren't being democrats.

[ButterflyBlood]

15. it was right after 9/11

everyone was still shocked. a lot didn't even bother to read it. even Republicans are having regrets now. i'm willing to forgive this one.

[Maddy McCall]

17. Agree...

and dems in conservative districts had the choice to vote for it or lose their position. Remember, America took a MAJOR right turn after 911.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

20. Okay then,

what about the candidates that still support it now?

[Maddy McCall]

21. such as whom?

name 'em. If they are in your district, do something about them.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

22. WEll, I was thinking more of candidates.

I'ts are few of them, and I don't like how Dean says that he only wants to get rid of parts of it, like it's okay if you restrict freedoms, but only certain ones.

[MercutioATC]

36. Dean wants to keep the security funding parts and ditch the rest

He said that there are funding components that should remain intact but that he doesn't approve of the rest. I think this view falls right in with his pragmatic approach to issues. Kind of a "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" stance.

[MaryBear]

16. Not if I can avoid it and still

have my vote make a difference.

[gate of the sun]

23. NO

and i will not until the bitter end and it becomes a sort of decision between two evils. Bush and some democrat that voted our rights away. HO HUM. Life sucks sometimes.

[Lindacooks]

24. YES

Anyone but Bush.

[Ashes]

26. bullpoopie

anyone who voted for this piece of shit and then said they didn't actually read it or know what was in it doesn't deserve to represent a herd of cattle, much less people. Anyone but bush? Hell, if they voted for taking away the bill of rights, they are as bad as bush.

[goobergunch]

28. The bill was voted on two days after it was introduced...

I doubt most Senators had time to read it. It annoys me that 99 Senators voted for it, but I look at the totality of their record when deciding whether to endorse their candidacy.

[genius]

29. Dean supports the worst portions of the Patriot Act

He wants to expand the intelligence services that the Patrot Act created to spy on us. I guess he too wants to be Big Brother.

[MercutioATC]

35. Where do you get THAT interpretation?

The only support I have heard Dean give to the Patriot Act was approval for increased spending for security measures. I have heard him say that he would keep these parts and repeal the rest.

[Nicholas_J]

40. here

PITT: If you win in 2004, will you repeal or scale back the Patriot Act?

DEAN: I would do two things. First of all, I would remove the parts of the Patriot Act that are clearly unconstitutional. It can't be constitutional to hold an American citizen without access to a lawyer. Secondly, it can't be constitutional for the FBI to be able to go through your files at the library or the local video store, to see what you've taken out in the last week, without a warrant. The other thing I would do is appoint judges that would uphold the constitution. This President is appointing people from the far-right Federalist Society who have a different view of the constitution than most Americans. I hate to agree with anything Dick Nixon said, but Dick Nixon used to say that he wanted strict constructionists for the bench. This President is appointing right-wing judicial activists. We need strict constructionists that believe in the constitution and will uphold it as written.

http://truthout.org/docs_03/052203A.shtml

Dean opposes SOME portions, does not define them,indeed, has NO idea of which poritons are constitutional, or unconstitutional:


Tuesday :: June 24, 2003

Dean and Kucinich on Issues

We can't vouch for the accuracy of this information, but Bob Harris has a chart contrasting Howard Dean's and Dennic Kucinich's positions on issues. He lists his sources as the candidates' own websites and searching via Google. He offers to make any corrections, so if you know of any, let him know.

As to crime, Harris reports that Dean opposes all use of medical marijuana. We didn't know that. Kucinich supports "compassionate use." Harris says Dean supports more federal funding for all aspects of the drug war.

We did know that Dean favors the death penalty for "extreme" crimes like terrorism or the killing of a police officer, although he is critical of Bush administration's "careless" approach to executions. We'd add that Dean has promised to direct his Attorney General to study the death penalty and any need for a moratorium to protect the innocent the day he takes office. Kucinich opposes the death penalty.

On the Patriot Act, Harris says Dean would repeal parts of it, but he also wants to expand intelligence agencies. Dean has praised Russ Feingold as the only Senator who opposed the act. Harris points out Kucinich voted against the Patriot Act.

Harris says,

Finally, Dean is basically a good guy, and if he's nominated I'll vote for him in a heartbeat. It's just that it's simply not accurate to refer to him as a progressive candidate. I'm also not saying that Kucinich's positions are the "right" ones on every issue; I just personally agree with him on most of them, and I think other progressives will, too.

If nominated, we'll support Dean as well. We think his criminal justice positions could use a progressive jolt, and since those are our primary concern, we're holding off declaring a favorite candidate at this point. But if anyone from his campaign is reading, we recommend going here to print out the Legislative Priorities and views on criminal justice issues of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and putting them in Mr. Dean's briefcase.

Update: Ezra Klein writes in the following correction to Harris's chart:

Dean's position on medical marijuana is neither for nor against, his stated position is that we have processes set up to evaluate the worth of new drugs, they should not be brought in a political decision. Dean would send medical marijuana to the FDA and abide by whatever they said.

We're relieved to learn Dean isn't totally opposed. For a federally funded report on the science of marijuana, we recommend the 1999 report by the Institute of Medicine Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base, available free in its entirety.

In January 1997, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) asked the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to conduct a review of the scientific evidence to assess the potential health benefits and risks of marijuana and its constituent cannabinoids (see the Statement of Task on page 9). That review began in August 1997 and culminates with this report.

The New England Journal of Medicine in 1997 included an article with this passage:

Federal authorities should rescind their prohibition of the medical use of marijuana for seriously ill patients and allow physicians to decide which patients to treat. The government should change marijuana's status from that of a Schedule I drug ... to that of a Schedule II drug ... and regulate it accordingly."

http://www.talkleft.com/archives/003511.html

Dean just babbles. saying WHATEVER he thinks may be popular at the moment. He does not clearly define his own stance, but attacks the stance of others, even misrepresenting himself as the ONLY candidate who did not support the Patriot ACt, when he clearly does not call for repealing it, or even suggest which sections he is speaking of. Since nearly all of the act is slated to be sunsetted in tow years, it is a moot point. Under the constitutional, and numerous pieces of legislation, the temporary elements included in the act are totally constitutional (as Lincolns suspension of habeas corpus, and the placing of Japanese in internment camps was deemed to be constitutional).

Dean simply is aqgain, being a political opportunist, who wouldnt recognize the constitution if it was tatoo'd on him

Dean is clearly babbling. Because the Patriot does not allow the FBI to get ANYTHING from a public library, or a video store, without a warrant. At all. they still need warrants for EVERYTING. The Patriot Act made one change only.

And this is in the area of wire taps. In the past, it was necessary to get a judicial order to wiretap a suspect, EVERY time you wanted to wiretap. All Patriot did was state that they did not need to get a new wiretap, evertime they needed to wire tap the same person under invesitgation during the same investigation.

His appointment of strict constuctionists is the judicial philosophy of Ultra-Conservative republicans, and is the philosophy of the extremist judges that Bush is trying to get into the courts. Things like the federal government has not right enacting legislation to protect workers, because that is a state right, and so on. SAem thing with abortion. A strict constructionist wouuld leave this to the states as well.

AS usual, Dean makes a statement, that appeals to a certain portion public, because of a certain outrage againt the Patriot Act, but as usual Dean comdemns others, but says NOTIHNG of substance. Becasue he doesnt KNOW anything.

Like stating that there are even portions of the Patriot Act that are unconstitutional (thre are none, as nothing is mandated). He states that the Partiot Act states that American Citizens can be held without access to a lawyer. It does not. Dean again, either either TOO stupid for words, or clearly being deceptive. Not one American citizen has been held without access to an attorney, or denied constitutional rights. But Dean again, lies about the act, in order to get those who support him, wo beleive his every word, to beleive something that is not correct.

[MercutioATC]

43. Do you READ what you post????

"PITT: If you win in 2004, will you repeal or scale back the Patriot Act?

DEAN: I would do two things. First of all, I would remove the parts of the Patriot Act that are clearly unconstitutional. It can't be constitutional to hold an American citizen without access to a lawyer. Secondly, it can't be constitutional for the FBI to be able to go through your files at the library or the local video store, to see what you've taken out in the last week, without a warrant. The other thing I would do is appoint judges that would uphold the constitution. This President is appointing people from the far-right Federalist Society who have a different view of the constitution than most Americans. I hate to agree with anything Dick Nixon said, but Dick Nixon used to say that he wanted strict constructionists for the bench. This President is appointing right-wing judicial activists. We need strict constructionists that believe in the constitution and will uphold it as written."

That's YOUR post, not mine.

HOW do you not understand this??? Dean has always said that he agrees with some of the funding issues addressed by the Patriot Act, but that he would seek to repeal the sections that infringed on Americans' rights. There ARE valuable parts of the Patriot Act. Repealing the entire bill would be akin to "throwing out the baby with the bathwater". Since it's already law, isn't is prudent to only eliminate the sections that infringe upon our rights while leaving such things as funding for inspections of incoming cargo at international ports intact?

What's your argument with this (aside from the fact that Dean said it)?

[Nicholas_J]

30. Easily

THe Patriot Act if you have EVER read all 300 odd pages of the thing(I was on a comittee for a public library that had to) You realize that it is the biggest piece of trash legislation ever written. It was written to make it seem like the government was doing something about what happened on 9/11. Not one part of the legislation is responsible for the arrests of foreign nationals who have been sitting in jail for being in the U.S. illegally.

Everything that was done was actually done under the federal executive orders that created FEMA IF you want to fear something, fear the executive order that Nixon wrote, Carter expanded.

Patriot Act has not manadates, not penalties for not doing what it ASKS various bodies to do.

http://www.disastercenter.com/laworder/11490.htm


http://resource.lawlinks.com/Content/Legal_Research/Executive_Orders/1964%20-%201992/executive_order_12148.htm

These two executive orders would have allowed Bush to seize power of the government as dictator with a military junta under him under time of any situation that the PRESIDENT himself defines as a national emergency, and hold this status until congress can meet and decide that the emergency is over. He could have done so on 9/111 if he cose to do so.

The president, in control of FEMA can then freeze prices and wages, seize all personally owned precious metals, and all valualbles. All real estate, the contents of all safe deposit boxes and on and on, if the in the event of a national emergency that is defined as such by the president alone.

I keep a fair amount of travellers check in Euro's in case these orders are activated. No Patriot act was a Presidential PR stunt.

I betcha didnt know that FEMA was sarted to be an emergency Gestapo.

And almost all of those parts are sunsetted for December 31, 2005.

Dean supports keeping the sections that are slated to end in 2 years.

[GOPBasher]

32. That was a month after 9/11

I think you should be a bit more forgiving of people who voted "yes" to the Patriot Act just one month after 9/11. They didn't even have time to read it or debate it. I'm more interested in what they do about it when it expires in 2005.

[MercutioATC]

33. The "I didn't read it" excuse is a load of B.S.

If you don't know what it says, don't sign it. Period.

[Nicholas_J]

37. Why read someting

That says nothing.

Patriot Act autorizes nothing, says nothing, requires nothing. It is an act that was written after the fear of 9/11 tat essentially reiterated what exists in previous U.S. law. There is nothing in it that the government had the power to ALREADY do. The Repbulicans just wrote it in order to look like they were doing something after the intelligence gaps that caused 9/11. Of course they read it. It was not more significant than congress voting to name some post office after a senator who just died.

I don't beleive the mountain that is being made out of this not even mole hill.

I am again becoming very concerned about how easy it is to manipulate the opinion of a certain portion of the electorate. It seems like the younger they are, the less they have been schooled in civics, and things I have known since the third grade, as it was drummed into my in civics class, and virtually everyone else my ages head in long hours of civics classes. Again, the average vocational school graduate in Great Britain seem to be far better educated and eloquent in speech than an American with a Graduate degree.

With Democrats who are so lacking in awareness of government, legislation, and the nature of legislative content, the party, and the country is doomed.

What is eve more important, before criticising the bill itself is whetther the CRITIC has actually read ALL of it. If you are relying on what other people tell you, even people you agree with, you are being manipulated.

[MercutioATC]

38. Why read a document you're signing???!!!

Because you're signing it...that's why. Whether it does anything or not, signing it was an endorsement.

I'd LOVE to hear your views on the draft that's been circulating of Patriot II and if you're under the assumption that it's also nothing to get worked up about.

[Nicholas_J]

41. They did read it

And decided, as I pointed out, that is says and does nothing that alters the civil rights of American citizens. WHy dont YOU read it before making your statements about it, instead of parroting Deans obviously ignorant statements about it.
Or have you decided that democracies are too much trouble, and we would be better off letting one man do ALL of the thinking for everyone.

[MercutioATC]

42. YOU were the one who said "Why read it?", not me..

...and I HAVE read it. If nothing else, have you not seen librarians' reactions to this?

Regardless of how you attempt to twist the issue, the Patriot Act DOES have an efect on ALL of our civil liberties. Are you seriously SO single-minded in you support of Kerry (or your attacks on Dean) that you can't admit that this legislation restricts all of our civil rights?

It seems to me that you answer every criticism of Kerry's votes (Patriot and Iraq war resolution) by saying that neither vote meant anything. You frequently go further by dismissing opposing viewpoints by saying that you have spent a long time doing research and most people don't understand Constitutional law.

I'm all for you supporting Kerry. I support Dean. I support him by telling people what I feel he can do for this country. I don't attack any other candidate. You rarely post anything other than opinion pieces attacking Dean and you have stated on numerous occasions that you'll stay home if Dean is the Dem nominee.

Who are the real patriots here? Are they the people who are committed to replacing Bush (with ANY Democratic candidate) or those who simply attack other Democrats?

I'm seriously looking forward to next year , when Dean is the nominee and we're all engaged in helping him to win the general election.

[gottaB]

39. Credibility problem

Asking critics to read ALL of it, that's pretty hefty. How about a pop quiz?

Manipulated by the aclu? As opposed to your expert opinion? I'll take my chances.

According to the aclu

The Patriot Act increases the governments surveillance powers in four areas:

1. Records searches. It expands the government's ability to look at records on an individual's activity being held by a third parties. (Section 215)
   
2. Secret searches. It expands the government's ability to search private property without notice to the owner. (Section 213)
   
3. Intelligence searches. It expands a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that had been created for the collection of foreign intelligence information (Section 218).
   
4. "Trap and trace" searches. It expands another Fourth Amendment exception for spying that collects "addressing" information about the origin and destination of communications, as opposed to the content (Section 214).

As for working on a library board, I am deeply suspicious that a person in such a position would brush all criticism of USA PATRIOT under the rug, and represent to us here on this board the notion that criticisms of PATRIOT are unfounded and ignorant. The American Library Association, which represents professional librarians across the country, takes a position that is diametrically opposed to yours. ALA Web Resource on PATRIOT.

There is a genuine credibility gap here. Claims to have read umpteen pages notwithstanding, you position isn't looking too good. You haven't done much at all to establish that your reading of the PATRIOT Act is more credible than the aclu's or the ala's.

(on edit: grammar)

[MercutioATC]

44. I also didn't vote on it...

I said "If you don't know what it says, don't sign it. Period." You disagree?

On review, was your reply even meant for me? It's addressed to my post, but doesn't seem to address ANYTHING I've said...

[gottaB]

46. sorry, no it wasn't meant for you

it was meant in reply to the post you were responding to.

[MercutioATC]

48. Gotcha :)

.

[jiacinto]

34. Yeah I can and I will

If that is the only issue that concerns you then you obviously don't have anything to lose with a second term of Bush. But there are millions of Americans who stand to lose a lot more and I am not going to let the GOP win because none of the candidates supports everything I want 100% of the time.

[MaverickX]

45. yes..

Some parts of the Patriot Act are good. The bad part is all in how DOJ uses it.

[LWolf]

47. I won't. In the primary.

In the general election, it is ABB.