(11/22) Republican Debate On Natl Security - Heritage Foundation & AEI - OFFICIAL Thread
- Thread starter Matt Collins
- Start date
flightlesskiwi
Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 4,058
delayed.. sorry.. what are the buzzwords?
Dick Morris obviously hasn't been looking at the polls recently.
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
Newt Gingrich's Musings on the PATRIOT Act
Tonight Former Speaker Newt Gingrich said this about the PATRIOT Act:
“No, I would not change it. I’m not aware of any specific change it needs. I’d look at strengthening it because I think the dangers are literally that great.
“And again, I spent years studying this stuff. you start thinking about one nuclear weapon in one American city and the scale of loss of life and you ask yourself, what should the president be capable of doing to stop that?
“And you come up with a very different answer. Again, very sharp division. criminal law, the government should be frankly on defense and you're innocent until proven guilty. National security, the government should have many more tools in order to save our lives.”
But not too long ago, he struck a familiar tone on the subject:
Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House (“The Policies of War: Refocus the mission,” San Francisco Chronicle, 11/11/03)
“We must ensure that the legal tools provided are not abused, and indeed, that they do not undermine the very foundation our country was built upon.”
“I strongly believe the Patriot Act was not created to be used in crimes unrelated to terrorism.”
“Recent reports, including one from the General Accounting Office, however indicate that the Patriot Act has been employed in investigations unconnected to terrorism or national security.
“In our battle against those that detest our free and prosperous society, we cannot sacrifice any of the pillars our nation stands upon, namely respect for the Constitution and the rule of law. Our enemies in the war against terrorism abuse the Islamic law known as the Sharia that they claim to value. It is perversely used as justification for their horrific and wanton acts of violence.
“We must demonstrate to the world that America is the best example of what a solid Constitution with properly enforced laws can bring to those who desire freedom and safety. If we become hypocrites about our own legal system, how can we sell it abroad or question legal systems different than our own?
“I strongly believe Congress must act now to rein in the Patriot Act, limit its use to national security concerns and prevent it from developing “mission creep” into areas outside of national security.
“Similarly, if prosecutors lack the necessary legislation to combat other serious domestic crimes, crimes not connected to terrorism, then lawmakers should seek to give prosecutors separate legislation to provide them the tools they need, but again not at the expense of civil rights. But in no case should prosecutors of domestic crimes seek to use tools intended for national security purposes.
“This war against terrorism requires Americans and American institutions to have the “courage to be safe,” this courage must include keeping to the American principles that have made this country great for more than 200 years.”
Tonight Former Speaker Newt Gingrich said this about the PATRIOT Act:
“No, I would not change it. I’m not aware of any specific change it needs. I’d look at strengthening it because I think the dangers are literally that great.
“And again, I spent years studying this stuff. you start thinking about one nuclear weapon in one American city and the scale of loss of life and you ask yourself, what should the president be capable of doing to stop that?
“And you come up with a very different answer. Again, very sharp division. criminal law, the government should be frankly on defense and you're innocent until proven guilty. National security, the government should have many more tools in order to save our lives.”
But not too long ago, he struck a familiar tone on the subject:
Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House (“The Policies of War: Refocus the mission,” San Francisco Chronicle, 11/11/03)
“We must ensure that the legal tools provided are not abused, and indeed, that they do not undermine the very foundation our country was built upon.”
“I strongly believe the Patriot Act was not created to be used in crimes unrelated to terrorism.”
“Recent reports, including one from the General Accounting Office, however indicate that the Patriot Act has been employed in investigations unconnected to terrorism or national security.
“In our battle against those that detest our free and prosperous society, we cannot sacrifice any of the pillars our nation stands upon, namely respect for the Constitution and the rule of law. Our enemies in the war against terrorism abuse the Islamic law known as the Sharia that they claim to value. It is perversely used as justification for their horrific and wanton acts of violence.
“We must demonstrate to the world that America is the best example of what a solid Constitution with properly enforced laws can bring to those who desire freedom and safety. If we become hypocrites about our own legal system, how can we sell it abroad or question legal systems different than our own?
“I strongly believe Congress must act now to rein in the Patriot Act, limit its use to national security concerns and prevent it from developing “mission creep” into areas outside of national security.
“Similarly, if prosecutors lack the necessary legislation to combat other serious domestic crimes, crimes not connected to terrorism, then lawmakers should seek to give prosecutors separate legislation to provide them the tools they need, but again not at the expense of civil rights. But in no case should prosecutors of domestic crimes seek to use tools intended for national security purposes.
“This war against terrorism requires Americans and American institutions to have the “courage to be safe,” this courage must include keeping to the American principles that have made this country great for more than 200 years.”
NorfolkPCSolutions
Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2011
- Messages
- 1,580
<-- Has broken out the vodka, can't take it anymore - but will soldier on. FOR PAUL!!
The Freethinker
Member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2010
- Messages
- 467
These people other than Paul are clueless. I'll admit Huntsman made a good point by referencing CoC authority, but other than that, they are so ignorant it's sad. I'm glad Bachmann pointed out Pakistan hasn't been a good ally, but she and Santorum are gonna take major flak for calling Pakistan one of the most violent nations there is and advocating racial/religious profiling, respectively.
"I agree with Ron Paul" - and Wolf won't even let Ron speak.
I agree with Ron Paul. Ron Paul is right. These marionettes are learning from the master, but they try to pass it as if he's simply stating THEIR views. What a departure from the last GOP debates in 2008.
"I agree with Ron Paul" - and Wolf won't even let Ron speak.
I agree with Ron Paul. Ron Paul is right. These marionettes are learning from the master, but they try to pass it as if he's simply stating THEIR views. What a departure from the last GOP debates in 2008.
Johncjackson
Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,764
All while Romney gets 15 rebuttals in a row.
He also asked for them, and took control of the situation. I know Paul doesn't get the same opportunities, but Romney knows how to be assertive and just take it when he wants it.
phill4paul
Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 46,967
NO rebuttal1
ronpaulfollower999
Member
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,874
Cain is invisible.
PursuePeace
Member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2011
- Messages
- 2,493
Israel... here we go.
flightlesskiwi
Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 4,058
<--- been doing this since the beginning.
jsingh1022
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2011
- Messages
- 273
Give this one to Ron Paul goddamnit
Similar threads
