Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 3074690" data-attributes="member: 13624">&quot;...this terrorism issue...&quot;Which explains why the DoJ under Pres. Bush was running seminars for law enforcement telling them how to use the USA PATRIOT Act, etc., for drug investigations and other non-terrorism cases, right?I&#039;m not &quot;glossing over&quot; anything, and I certainly don&#039;t approve of anybody&#039;s illegal use of those powers.&nbsp; I just think it&#039;s hypocritical for Republicans to whine about it now when they&#039;re the ones who wrote the legislation and they made it official policy to teach law enforcement how to use it for non-terror offenses.9/11 was the security state&#039;s wet dream.&nbsp; It was 342 pages long and introduced in the House on 2 October, a scant 21 days after the attacks.&nbsp; Does anybody really believe that anybody was able to research all of the necessary references and write a bill that long in three weeks?&nbsp; Bull puckey; that bill--in parts, anyway--was written in advance, lying in wait for the right opportunity.&nbsp; &quot;Never let a crisis go to waste,&quot; and all of that.&nbsp; Even assuming arguendo that it was all written after the attacks, it passed the Senate on 11 October and the House the next day; can anybody tell me with a straight fact that the members read, let alone truly understood, the full impact of the bill?&nbsp; Yeah, didn&#039;t think so.So go on, tell me again how those saintly Republicans only intended for the surveillance state to be used to combat terrorism, and are just shocked--shocked, I say--to find it&#039;s being used for other purposes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 3074690, member: 13624"] "...this terrorism issue..." Which explains why the DoJ under Pres. Bush was running seminars for law enforcement telling them how to use the USA PATRIOT Act, etc., for drug investigations and other non-terrorism cases, right? I'm not "glossing over" anything, and I certainly don't approve of anybody's illegal use of those powers. I just think it's hypocritical for Republicans to whine about it now when they're the ones who wrote the legislation and they made it [I]official policy[/I] to teach law enforcement how to use it for non-terror offenses. 9/11 was the security state's wet dream. It was 342 pages long and introduced in the House on 2 October, a scant 21 days after the attacks. Does anybody [I]really[/I] believe that anybody was able to research all of the necessary references and write a bill that long in three weeks? Bull puckey; that bill--in parts, anyway--was written in advance, lying in wait for the right opportunity. "Never let a crisis go to waste," and all of that. Even assuming arguendo that it was all written after the attacks, it passed the Senate on 11 October and the House the next day; can anybody tell me with a straight fact that the members read, let alone truly understood, the full impact of the bill? Yeah, didn't think so. So go on, tell me again how those saintly Republicans only intended for the surveillance state to be used to combat terrorism, and are just shocked--shocked, I say--to find it's being used for other purposes. [/QUOTE]

Verification