Democratic Duplicity - Kerry, Edwards and Graham voted for Patriot Act

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/perkins/20030530-850-perkins.html

"And if Sens. Kerry, Edwards and Graham think the nation's highest court abdicated its duty to uphold the Constitution, let them save the American people from the Patriot Act. Let them propose legislation repealing the law they voted for."

Aren't you glad that Dean doesn't believe in legal "technicalities"...The Hartmann piece really illustrates Dean's rightwing nature.

Our Government Needs Good Citizens
by Thom Hartmann

>>>>
In July of 1997, Vermont governor Howard Dean announced that he wanted to appoint to the Vermont Supreme Court a justice who would consider "common sense more important than legal technicalities" and "quickly convict guilty criminals."

It’s probably a testimonial to the good job public education has done in Vermont that there wasn’t a public uprising against him (although the Montpelier newspaper’s letters-to-the-editor section was filled with invective for several weeks). Certainly this is a statement that would not have been acceptable to the people who made Vermont the second independent Caucasian-run nation in North America (after Texas). The founding fathers of Vermont, which dropped its independent-nation status to become the USA’s 14th state in 1779, knew all too well the dangers of a government unconstrained by the "technicalities" of the law. They’d seen it when the British forced them to house soldiers, shot or hung them for speaking out against the King, and allowed them to engage in commerce or own property only if they gave a portion of their wealth to England. They realized that the government has most of the guns and all the power, and that it’s only "legal technicalities" which keep any government at bay. They fought and many of them died to put those "technicalities" into place. When politicians like Dean call for "swift and certain conviction of the guilty" (which actually means "swift and certain conviction of the accused, since a person is only guilty when they’ve been convicted…at least as of the date of this writing) in the courts of the state "regardless of technicalities," I imagine our founding fathers roll over in their graves.
>>>>>

Cowards and Traitors every last one of them.

The bill was rushed through before they had a chance to read it. There problem was not so much with opposition to civil rights as with their willingness to follow the Senate leadership that ordered them to vote for it. I see the same kind of blind loyalty among the
Dean followers, indiduals who would immediatly sign or back anything their leader told them to. At least the Senate later work up. When will the Dean followers wake up and look at Dean's record on civil liberties?

He voted AGAINST IT!!!

Dennis for President

I like Dean. But I'm getting a little tired of the vote bashing when it's impossible to tell how he would have voted at that particular time.

Yes, you nailed it. Dean can talk and talk but he doesn't have to contend with party politics and internal pressure like active senators and congressmen do. In short, he never really has to walk the walk. He can spout anger and rhetoric and say what he'd hypothetically do, but never has to do. I'm sure in the senate, party politics and pressures play a huge role, and it's not a simple yes/no for some people.

And Thorstein, your repetitive posts about Kerry and the Patriot Act and how he's a coward are boring and at times, very inaccurate. Yes, he did vote for the Patriot Act, probably due to party politics. However, in the article that BLM so kindly points out, he clearly does not agree with it a 100%, and he calls for various changes in it. And John Kerry is anything but a coward afraid of political flak. His outspoken environmental stances, which have given him praise from the League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club, his bravery to become an anti-war veteran in the Vietnam conflict, and his courage to expose the corruption and under-dealings in the Hill smacks of a righteous man who's not afraid to be an outsider. Oh, I guess he's a flip-flopper trying to have it both ways because he served in Vietnam yet opposed it later on.

Because they are so used comprimise and the "old boys club" that they cannot lead.

And I am sorry if you disagree with me, but Kerry is NOT the right man for 2004. He comprimised himself with the Iraq resolution and the Patriot Act, both of which were incredibly wrong and cowardly.

He has no vision. He is too "nuanced" (unlike Bush). He has no value system (that I can see). And he is not a fighter.

He's for the damned thing too. He's talked about a couple of provisions he is concerned with, the same as everybody else.

Blind loyalty is not healthy. No human being is perfect, not even Howard Dean.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_civilrights


I will oppose expansion of the Patriot Act, efforts to remove sunset clauses included in the act, and will seek to repeal the portions of the Patriot Act that are unconstitutional.



http://www.johnkerry.com/site/PageServer?JServSessionIdr009=riq81odvkk.app8b&pagename=civ_main

Please notice that nowhere on Kerrys website is there even a mention of his vote for the Patriot Act or any of his supposed "opposition" to it.

Kerry is such a coward. He wants it both ways. He is unable to stand up and be decisive on an issue.

Dean has spoken of two.

It doesn't need to be on Kerry's web site for people who read to know where he stands. Sorry you can only manage to find one web site in order to get your information.

Nowhere. Because Kerry is the master of equivocation and sophistry and subltly and complexity. His "values" are so dilluted and confused he doesn't even know what he believes in anymore.

Why doesn't Kerry state his position on his website?

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

:hurts::hurts::hurts::hurts::hurts::hurts::hurts::hurts::hurts::hurts::hurts::hurts::hurts::hurts:

>>>>>
Opponents say the Patriot Act represents a major assault upon civil liberties. But Kerry said Ashcroft’s biggest threats to civil liberties don’t stem from the Patriot Act itself, but other sources, such as his “misinterpretation” of a 1938 law now being used to classify some terrorism suspects as “enemy non-combatants.”

Kerry said he doesn’t support Ashcroft’s recent request for additional powers to combat terrorism.

“We need to fix the things that are wrong with the Patriot Act, addressing concerns about civil liberties and privacy,” he said.

http://www.dreamwater.com/blueelf/prezKERRY.html

who blah blah blah blah.

I'm starting to wonder if Dean isn't running a really great scam.

The attacks, the mistatements, the constant woulda, coulda shoulda. I often find myself wondering - which side is this guy ON?

What side is Kerry on?

What side is the DLC on?

Except John Ashcroft.

Kerry supports the flaying of our 4th ammendment rights and the placing of our civil liberites into the hands of a fallible human.

His attitude is unconstitutional and fundamentally unAmerican. Our Constitution is what provides us with Liberties - Not some leader (no matter how well intentioned).

History tells us that power corrupts. If we have no codes to keep the powerful in check, then all is lost. Our founding fathers knew this, why doesn't John Kerry?

“We need to fix the things that are wrong with the Patriot Act, addressing concerns about civil liberties and privacy,” - John Kerry

Kerry said Ashcroft’s biggest threats to civil liberties don’t stem from the Patriot Act itself, but other sources, such as his “misinterpretation” of a 1938 law now being used to classify some terrorism suspects as “enemy non-combatants.”

Nothing. He just harps on about the Patriot Act because he knows it's a hot button topic. Do you care about the people being held illegally or not? Because if you do, you better have a candidate that understands the intricacies of the laws that are being used to violate their rights.

Knowing the intricacies of laws and supporting civil liberties are to different things:

Here is Dean's position on "detainees":

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_civilrights

I will protect the civil rights of immigrants detained by the Department of Homeland Security.

You or Kerry?

“We need to fix the things that are wrong with the Patriot Act, addressing concerns about civil liberties and privacy,” he said.

not in the interest of the United States.

A leopard does not change his spots.

Tactics worthy of the fruitcakes.

I hate fruitcake.

But I hate cowardice even more.

Perkins disingenuously neglects to mention that there are two Patriot Acts and that it is Patriot Act II that poses the real danger to America's civil liberties. He also conveniently forgets to mention that while Graham voted for PA I in good faith out of concern for the welfare of our people, he adamantly opposes PA II. Makes one wonder what else Perkins omitted to make his biased point.


http://www.grahamforpresident.com