DeMint, Republicans oppose USA PATRIOT ACT

[Alcibiades]

According to Senator DeMint, "If we had treated this Christmas Day bomber as a terrorist, he would have immediately been interrogated military-style, rather than given the rights of an American and lawyers. We probably lost valuable information."

AND YET:

DeMint also claims to be a strong supporter of the USA PATRIOT ACT:

“The Patriot Act has been a vital weapon in our arsenal to win the War on Terror. South Carolinians understand that we must use every tool available to defend ourselves against the threat of terrorism. The Patriot Act has already led to the arrest and prosecution of terrorists within the United States, and has strengthened the ability to control our borders.”

DeMint is right on the second count. Title VIII of the USA PATRIOT ACT redefines terrorism to include exactly the type of attack of which Abdulmutallab is accused. The Act includes increasing criminal penalties for acts of terrorism, to include life in prison and the death penalty.

So why is it, if Jim DeMint supports the USA PATRIOT ACT, which specifically includes the treatment of terror suspects as criminals under law, does he fail to support actually applying the USA PATRIOT ACT against specific terror suspects, such as Abdulmutallab?

Senator DeMint should come out in favor of actually applying the criminal provisions of the USA PATRIOT ACT, or acknowledge that he is, by his own standards, weak on terrorism.

"An equal application of law to every condition of man is fundamental." --Thomas Jefferson

[rocktivity]

1. And if the Republicans weren't more afraid of a unionized TSA employee

than a terrorist, maybe they'd stop preventing Obama from appointing a new head for it.


rocktivity

[Alcibiades]

2. Good point

Of course, to any South Carolina Republican, unions=terrorists.

[liberal N proud]

3. Interesting enough, it was a republican congress who passed the Patriot Act

But just like they do with the bible, they pick and chose what to apply to meet their needs.

Then they twist what they can't accomplished through selective application.

[Alcibiades]

9. At the time, there was little controversy surrounding Title VIII

Everyone was in favor of increasing criminal penalties for terrorists--the controversy centered around the warrant procedures, wiretapping, etc. Few noticed that "racketeers" now would be counted as terrorists.

[Skidmore]

4. If we let them get by with this, we deserve to lose seats. The Rs nailed

* and Cheney and fearmongering and this albatross of a law (among many others) on the nation's door. I'll be damned if I will step up and claim ownership of the waste they layed to this nation, and I refuse to hang it on to the President. These are truly dispicable and hateful people.

[Alcibiades]

5. It's a good chance to hoist them by their own petard

No need to nuance it: they were in favor of trying terrorists in criminal court before they were against it.

You're right to note that the USA PATRIOT ACT is a big stinking turd, though I find most of the provisions of Title VIII reasonable, and they are supported by this President and the AG. What they have never done, though, is to frame the issue in these terms: trying terror suspects in criminal court is exactly the process countenanced by the PATRIOT ACT, and it shouldn't be so easy for Republicans to weasel out of it, after they have invested so much political capital in laying the aforementioned turd upon the nation.

[Skidmore]

6. Congress should be working on making good law from this mess, but

now they are going to be cowed once again by the boogeyman. Bin Laden really knew how to set us up for a downfall, didn't he. All it took was one attack on our soil. Wonder what we would have done after Pearl Harbor, given the current mix of personalities and BS political views.

[BR_Parkway]

7. And if we had done tribunal, DeMint would have instantly said we should

have tried him in a civilian court - there's nothing principled about these people anymore, they are just for show.

[RedCloud]

8. That's it! Off with his head.