FU Newt! The Patriot Act did not stop terrorist attacks!

[Brian4Liberty]

So the media is playing up Newt's smart-ass response to Ron Paul that Timothy McVeigh succeeded in his attack before the Patriot Act.

But since the Patriot Act has existed, we have had multiple attacks that have or would have succeeded. Chew on this Newt:

- Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who succeeded in his terrorist attack on Fort Hood. How did that slip through Newt?
- Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber, who only failed because of incompetence. How did that slip through Newt?
- Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square Car Bomber, who only failed because of incompetence. How did that slip through Newt?
- And the infamous Underwear Bomber, who they had actually been warned about!

How about outside the US? Aren't you paying attention to our allies, Newt?

- 2008 Mumbai attacks, which sadly were successful.
- 2005 London Subway bombings, which sadly were successful. We aren't helping our allies very well with the Patriot Act. How about that Newt?
- 2011 Norway attacks, which sadly was successful. Another domestic terrorist like McVeigh. How did you miss him Newt?

No amount of Unconstitutional government surveillance or torture will stop these incidents. Give up your liberties, but you will never stop bad things from happening. That is reality, Newt.

 

[TexAg09]

I remember reading somewhere that the Patriot Act has only been used once for terrorism, but something like 1400 times on the War on Drugs. I would imagine that's pretty spot on....

 

[Brian4Liberty]

And how could I forget the Underwear Bomber...

 

[RonPaulMall]

I remember reading somewhere that the Patriot Act has only been used once for terrorism, but something like 1400 times on the War on Drugs. I would imagine that's pretty spot on....

The study was between 2006-2009, and there were 1,600 some Drug Cases vs 100 some Fraud cases and exactly 15 Terrorism Cases. I remember because it was used for Drugs just over 100 times as often as terrorism. This is one area where I really wish Paul were a more gifted debater. Newt spews out bull crap about his fancy "strict separation" between "Criminal Law" and "National Security" that is utterly at odds with the reality of what is happening with the Patriot Act and there is nobody there to call him on it. It's especially bad because Gingrich is so smug and confident and says crap like "I've been studying this issue for years".

 

[Pericles]

And how could I forget the Underwear Bomber...

Who got the bomb on the plane, and got on the plane after the USG was told about him.

The shoe bomber also got the bomb on the plane.

So far, terrorist incompetence has done more to stop plots than the USG. Entrapment of idiots too stupid to build their own bombs does not count.

 

[seapilot]

It did stop all the attacks that the F bee eye fabricated.

 

[Philhelm]

What's even more fascinating is that the ones they didn't catch were more incompetent than Wile E. Coyote...

 

[QuickZ06]

Nice post man and I agree 100% percent. I was hoping the Dr. would have used some of these examples in his counter answer. Can I post this on another site please?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Nice post man and I agree 100% percent. I was hoping the Dr. would have used some of these examples in his counter answer. Can I post this on another site please?

Sure, feel free to share the information. Another helpful fact is that when they do claim they stopped a terrorist, it's usually some dolt that they have encouraged and entrapped.

 

[donnay]

The Patriot Act: Targeting American Citizens
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2004/091004patriotact.htm

 

[nobody's_hero]

I wouldn't have used McVeigh. I could see it coming when he suggested that.

Newt apparently does not want a 'reactive' defense. So, Ron Paul needs to go to the root of the history in U.S./Arab relations and educate people. Trying to solve the problem of terrorism without looking at the causes is about as reactive as it gets. A pro-active approach would be a drastic change in our foreign policy that's existed for the last half-century or so.

99.9% of people don't just attack others for no reason at all.

 

[ronpaulitician]

No amount of Unconstitutional government surveillance or torture will stop these incidents. Give up your liberties, but you will never stop bad things from happening. That is reality, Newt.

If massive government spending doesn't solve our woes, we just need MORE government spending.
If massive goverment spying doesn't prevent mass murder, we just need MORE government spying.

 

[LibertyEagle]

So the media is playing up Newt's smart-ass response to Ron Paul that Timothy McVeigh succeeded in his attack before the Patriot Act.

But since the Patriot Act has existed, we have had multiple attacks that have or would have succeeded. Chew on this Newt:

- Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who succeeded in his terrorist attack on Fort Hood. How did that slip through Newt?
- Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber, who only failed because of incompetence. How did that slip through Newt?
- Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square Car Bomber, who only failed because of incompetence. How did that slip through Newt?
- And the infamous Underwear Bomber, who they had actually been warned about!

How about outside the US? Aren't you paying attention to our allies, Newt?

- 2008 Mumbai attacks, which sadly were successful.
- 2005 London Subway bombings, which sadly were successful. We aren't helping our allies very well with the Patriot Act. How about that Newt?
- 2011 Norway attacks, which sadly was successful. Another domestic terrorist like McVeigh. How did you miss him Newt?

No amount of Unconstitutional government surveillance or torture will stop these incidents. Give up your liberties, but you will never stop bad things from happening. That is reality, Newt.

He would just use that as a rationale for him wanting to increase the government powers in the Patriot Act.

 

[LibertyEagle]

If massive government spending doesn't solve our woes, we just need MORE government spending.
If massive goverment spying doesn't prevent mass murder, we just need MORE government spying.

Yup, that's it.

Most people believe the government is lined with crooks, yet they seem to want to hand the government more power over their liberty and their money. It's insane.

 

[tfurrh]

If Newt says 'candidly' one more time, I'm gonna...I'm gonna...well I guess I'll just be annoyed.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

He would just use that as a rationale for him wanting to increase the government powers in the Patriot Act.

You are probably correct there. The only solution that enters the minds of the these idiots is more government, less liberty, even when government is the problem in the first place.

 

[TomL]

Besides all that, it seems Newt believes that because Tim McVeigh was successful, the rest of us should lose our liberty. I wrote about that: http://chirp.freeforums.org/republican-debate-on-cnn-on-11-22-11-t116.html

By the way, can I also post the OP on one of my sites?

 

[DamianTV]

If massive government spending doesn't solve our woes, we just need MORE government spending.
If massive goverment spying doesn't prevent mass murder, we just need MORE government spying.

Insanity is defined as doing the exact same thing and expecting completely different results.

 

[MelissaWV]

I was talking about an offshoot of this last night, and am surprised it has not come up in this thread.

Hindsight is 20/20 of course, but I wish Ron's answer would have included the fact that the thwarted plots were thwarted... by citizens. The shoe bomber got on the plane, but was caught trying to light his shoe. The people who noticed this, the person who kept him from actually accomplishing his goal, could have waited for an authority figure to tell them what to do. They could have called in and followed protocol and all that. They could have appealed to the Government. They didn't. They acted. The underwear bomber also got on the plane, and was not subdued in mid-flight by a crowd of baton-waving police. I believe the guy who wanted to blow up trucks/cars in Times Square was turned in by a hardware store owner or something.

Those examples are also remarkable because, despite the TSA's "best" efforts, they are reactionary. These people made it on the planes, and then we had to take our shoes off. After shoe bombs made it on the planes. After people on "no fly" lists made it on the planes.

 

[Pericles]

I was talking about an offshoot of this last night, and am surprised it has not come up in this thread.

Hindsight is 20/20 of course, but I wish Ron's answer would have included the fact that the thwarted plots were thwarted... by citizens. The shoe bomber got on the plane, but was caught trying to light his shoe. The people who noticed this, the person who kept him from actually accomplishing his goal, could have waited for an authority figure to tell them what to do. They could have called in and followed protocol and all that. They could have appealed to the Government. They didn't. They acted. The underwear bomber also got on the plane, and was not subdued in mid-flight by a crowd of baton-waving police. I believe the guy who wanted to blow up trucks/cars in Times Square was turned in by a hardware store owner or something.

Those examples are also remarkable because, despite the TSA's "best" efforts, they are reactionary. These people made it on the planes, and then we had to take our shoes off. After shoe bombs made it on the planes. After people on "no fly" lists made it on the planes.

Yeah, the only attacks that have been thwarted after being launched were stopped by citizens forming themselves into a militia, and doing something about it.

The irony of all of the candidates who rail about government incompetence, want the government more deeply involved in internal security.