Redfish
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #21
The Patriot Act would be the closes thing to what the OP is contending.
The Patriot Act has a factual history of bi-partisan support.
"From broad concern felt among Americans from both the September 11 attacks and the 2001 anthrax attacks, Congress rushed to pass legislation to strengthen security controls. On October 23, 2001, Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 3162 incorporating provisions from a previously sponsored House bill and a Senate bill also introduced earlier in the month.[4] The next day on October 24, 2001, the Act passed the House 357 to 66,[5] with Democrats comprising the overwhelming portion of dissent. The following day, on October 25, 2001, the Act passed the Senate by 98 to 1" **
And then George W Bush signed off on it.
BUT then:
"On May 26, 2011, President Barack Obama signed the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, a four-year extension of three key provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act:[2] roving wiretaps, searches of business records (the "library records provision"), and conducting surveillance of "lone wolves"—individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities not linked to terrorist groups." **
So what we have here is something both liberals and conservatives are certainly guilty of and that would be "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
It would seem the OP's opinion takes in only half the historical facts to form an opinion, Why is that? What's wrong with the rest of the facts?
** Patriot Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
all facts are relevant, no one said otherwise.