The President’s Radio Address
Monday, 19 December 2005 | 230 readers so far
As President, I took an oath to defend the Constitution, and I have no greater responsibility than to protect our people, our freedom, and our way of life. On September the 11th, 2001, our freedom and way of life came under attack by brutal enemies who killed nearly 3,000 innocent Americans. We’re fighting these enemies across the world. Yet in this first war of the 21st century, one of the most critical battlefronts is the home front. And since September the 11th, we’ve been on the offensive against the terrorists plotting within our borders.”
President’s Radio Address, December 17, 2005
Good point. I’m in 100% agreement that the United States Government needs the ability to effectively stop terrorism at home and abroad if it is directed at U.S. citizens or U.S. interests.
Yet key provisions of this law are set to expire in two weeks. The terrorist threat to our country will not expire in two weeks. The terrorists want to attack America again, and inflict even greater damage than they did on September the 11th. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that law enforcement and intelligence officials have the tools they need to protect the American people.
The House of Representatives passed reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Yet a minority of senators filibustered to block the renewal of the Patriot Act when it came up for a vote yesterday. That decision is irresponsible, and it endangers the lives of our citizens. The senators who are filibustering must stop their delaying tactics, and the Senate must vote to reauthorize the Patriot Act. In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment. “
Here is my question, with all due respect to the President. If the Patriot Act is so essential in protecting Americans from terrorism, then why are we putting in anti-methamphetamine clauses? That is a domestic industry that has nothing to do with terrorism. Certainly, methamphetamine manufacturing is illegal, but unrelated to the security of the nation.
There are many other problems with the Patriot Act. It is stopgap legislation that has been on the books for too long. It should be rewritten.
I believe in what we are doing in Iraq, and I believe my President is a sincere and honest man with a thankless job who is doing his best. I believe him when he says that revealing classified programs is wrong. But I’m not convinced the Patriot Act is good legislation.
The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I’m the President of the United States.”
I’m with you on that, sir. Oh, sir, by the way, thanks for your service to our Nation. You have a job I wouldn’t want.
An alternative viewpoint from Dean’s World.
1 December 20th, 2005 at 12:30 pm
Mudville Gazette says:
cyanide. (Note: Mustard gas, yea its WMD.) A truly horrific, painful, slow technique used to kill people. They may not have had it when we went into Iraq but they defiantly had it before we went in as they stalled the UN inspectors to move the stuff. The President’s Radio Address — [The Will to Exist - in Iraq] …Here is my question, with all due respect to the President. If the Patriot Act is so essential in protecting Americans from terrorism, then why are we putting in anti-methamphetamine clauses? That is a domestic
2 December 21st, 2005 at 6:40 pm
Kitanis says:
I go back to the Oath of Enlistment to the Armned Forces of the United States.
“I, do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed overme, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
So if I read that and listen to the President, then I am in in conflict. The Patriot Act is the most blatant piece of legislation to the consitution that was every enacted. It strips provisions of protection provided to individuals in the name of security. In otherwords, what was once a hinderance to law enforcement is now possible if they apply it to Homeland Security.
I am with you Trevor, I am not against the war in Iraq and I think it should be followed to the end. But I do not agree that consitutional protection should be circumvented. The last qoute by the president made me sad though.
“The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I’m the President of the United States.â€
Then Sir, why are you trying to keep a act in place that essentially strips the public of the their freedoms that are confirmed by the same document that grants you the power to do “everything” in your power as President?
I support the President, I will protect him and his administration as perscribed in DOD 5200.1, but I do not necessary agree with him on his tactics since then. But thats my own opinion.
3 December 22nd, 2005 at 8:08 am
GunnNutt says:
It seems to me we’re swinging from one extreme to another. First there’s the “wall” that keeps international and domestic agencies from talking to one another and connecting dots, then there’s the Patriot Act that “essentially strips the public of their freedoms”.
Kitanis, can you identify the provisions of the Act to which you object? I’m not picking a fight, I’ve just never heard anyone be that specific and I’d really like to know.
4 December 23rd, 2005 at 10:13 pm
Bob King says:
First point - I’m blogrolling you so I’ve got a reality check for my theoretical understandings.I’m trying to tell the truth, not add to the asshattery. But your post goes to family history and hard choices. Does one uphold the constitution, or does one obey the CINC? At what POINT must one make such a choice? I’m referring, of course, to the sorrowful decision of my vague collateral ancestor, Gen. Robert E. Lee. The answer, of course, should be this: You shouldn’t even have to be thinking about this, and it’s my job to ensure that you do not have to. That’s my second point: As a citizen/civilian/communicator, my duty is to the First Amendment. Yours - well, it’s the Second. Delegated to you by you and every other citizen, asshat or otherwise. It’s our job to ensure you are pointed in the right direction, our fault if you aren’t, and I am not about to fault you for doing the necessary. I hope that lesson has been learned by others, but if not, I’ll drive a nail in my cluebyfour and deal with it. And don’t think that you are only supported by the Right Wingers. I’m a full-bore Libertarian who philosophically opposes this war pretty much by definition. But I am not proud as hell of each and every one of you and amazed at how well y’all are handling this situation. You know, the smart money said that such urban warfare would combine the worst aspects of the Warsaw Ghetto and Iwo Jima. I have never been so happy and so proud to be completely wrong. My reading of the history of war and peace is that war is almost by definition the ultimate outcome of stupidity, arrogance, miscommunication, poor leadership, fanaticism and cultural misunderstanding. In the case of this war - and never mind the technicalities of it’s legalities - we have a perfect storm. But that is not YOUR problem. Nor should you be in the least concerned that the consequences of your actions may or may not make the situation better or worse. I wish you to understand that whatever I say about this war to the President or my congressional delegates - or some of the highly polished brass asses in the Pentagon - that my single concern for all of you is to come home with all parts connected. Given that, I hope you remember that we’d ALSO like you to come home with as few regrets as possible. But come home. As for the Patriot act - Well, I have two points to make about this. First, of course, it’s an assault upon the Constitution and our Civil Liberties; a wish list of professional paranoids and big-goverenment nanny-state types.But my second point is more immediate. Before we allow these violations of our Civil Liberties, perhaps we should investigate applying intelligence to the intelligence we HAVE or could easily and legally obtain WITHOUT it.The NSA has been bitching for years - decades - that it has neither the funds nor the people to handle the volume of data they collect.Every critique of the intelligence failures leading to 9/11 points to information we actually had that SHOULD have rung bells, as well as the lack of Humint on the ground and expert analysis, translation, etc at Langly.In other words, aside from the civil liberties issues, the patriot act (and DHS) serve to distract, dilute and divert the resources we have and create additonal layers of administrivia to delay and distort whatever intel IS generated.Franklin said that anyone willing to sacrifice a little Liberty for a little security deserved neither. Allow me to observe a corellary - anyone asking you to sacrifice a great deal of liberty for effectively LESS security deserves … well. Fill in the most satisfying response. But diselection comes to mind.