U.S. Rep. Ron Paul | Patriot Act |
Patriot Act
Statement on the Financial Services committee’s “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2003”
February 28, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 12:2
For example, this document gives an unqualified endorsement to increased taxpayer support for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN). According to the committee, these increased funds are justified by FINCEN’s new authority under the PATRIOT Act. However, Mr. Chairman, FINCEN’s powers to snoop into the private financial affairs of American citizens raise serious constitutional issues. Whether the expansion of FINCEN’s power threatens civil liberties is ignored in this document; instead, the report claims the only problem with the PATRIOT Act is that the federal financial police state does not have enough power and taxpayer money to invade the privacy of United States citizens!
Patriot Act
Predictions
24 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 25:16
Erosion of civil liberties here at home will continue as our government responds to political fear in dealing with the terrorist threat by making generous use of the powers obtained with the Patriot Act.
Patriot Act
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:39
Personal privacy, the sine qua non of liberty, no longer exists in the United States. Ruthless and abusive use of all this information accumulated by the government is yet to come. The Patriot Act has given unbelievable power to listen, read, and monitor all our transactions without a search warrant being issued after affirmation of probably cause. “Sneak and peak” and blanket searches are now becoming more frequent every day. What have we allowed to happen to the 4th amendment?
Patriot Act
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:97
-The Patriot Act, which undermines the 4th Amendment with the establishment of an overly broad and dangerous definition of terrorism.
Patriot Act
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY – WHO NEEDS IT?
July 23, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 73:9
Yet, we have done plenty to undermine the liberties and privacy of all Americans through legislation such as the PATRIOT Act. A program is being planned to use millions of Americans to spy on their neighbors, an idea appropriate for a totalitarian society. Regardless of any assurances, we all know that the national ID card will soon be instituted.
Patriot Act
“You Are A Suspect”
14 November 2002 2002 Ron Paul 103:8
Even the hastily passed U.S.A. Patriot Act, which widened the scope of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and weakened 15 privacy laws, raised requirements for the government to report secret eavesdropping to Congress and the courts. But Poindexter’s assault on individual privacy rides roughshod over such oversight.
Patriot Act
The Financial Services Committee’s Terrible Blueprint for 2004
February 28, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 27:2
For example, this document gives an unqualified endorsement to increased taxpayer support for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN). According to the committee, these increased funds are justified by FINCEN’s new authority under the PATRIOT Act. However, Mr. Chairman, FINCEN’s power to snoop into the private financial affairs of American citizens raises serious constitutional issues. Whether the expansion of FINCEN’s power threatens civil liberties is ignored in this document; instead, the committee is concerned that the federal financial police state does not have enough power and taxpayer money to invade the privacy of United States citizens!
Patriot Act
Continuity Of Government — Part 1
5 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 62:6
I would suggest that maybe the urgency is not quite as much as one thinks. I want to quote Michael Barone who was trying to justify a constitutional amendment that allows governors to appoint moc in a time of crisis. He said, “think of all the emergency legislation that Congress passed in the weeks and months after September 11 authorizing expanded police powers. None of this could have happened”. But now as we look back at those emergency conditions, a lot of questions are being asked about the PATRIOT Act and the attack on our fourth amendment and civil liberties. I suggest there could be a slower approach no harm will come of it. Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Patriot Act
The “Continuity of Government” Proposal – A Dangerous and Unnecessary Threat to Representative Rule
June 30, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 72:8
In fact, Congress often goes months without passing significant legislation, and takes long breaks in August and December. If anything, legislation passed in the aftermath of a terrorist event is likely to be based on emotion, not reason. The terrible Patriot Act, passed only one month after September 11 th by a credulous Congress, is evidence of this.
Patriot Act
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:43
16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
Patriot Act
PATRIOT Act
22 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 88:3
When the PATRIOT Act was passed, it was in the passions following 9/11, and that bill should have never been passed. It was brought up carelessly, casually, in a rapid manner. The bill that had been discussed in the Committee on the Judiciary was removed during the night before we voted. The full text of this bill was very difficult to find. I am convinced that very few Members were able to review this bill before voting. That bill should have never passed. We certainly should continue to maintain the sunset provisions. But that is a long way off, and we should be starting to reform and improve this particular piece of legislation. This is our first chance to do so.
Patriot Act
PATRIOT Act
22 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 88:4
I have had many Members in the Congress come to me and on the quiet admit to me that voting for the PATRIOT Act was the worst bill and the worst vote they have ever cast; and this will give them an opportunity to change it, although this is very narrow. It is too bad we could not have made this more broad, and it is too bad we are not going to get to vote on the amendment of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. SANDERS) to make sure that without the proper search warrant that the Federal Government would not have access to the library records.
Patriot Act
PATRIOT Act
22 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 88:10
Not only should we do whatever we can to reform that legislation, but we already know that there is a PATRIOT Act No. 2. It has not been given to us, the Congress; but the administration has it for the future. It is available, but we have only gotten to see it from the Internet.
Patriot Act
PATRIOT Act
22 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 88:12
I see this as a very, very important issue, if anybody cares about liberty, if anybody cares about personal freedom and the rule of law and the need for probable cause before our government comes barging into our houses. It has been under the guise of drug laws that have in the past instituted many of these abuses, but this is much worse. This has been put into an explicit piece of legislation, and the American people and this Congress ought to become very alert to this and realize how serious the PATRIOT Act is.
Patriot Act
Statement Opposing the Continuity of Government Proposal
September 9, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 94:4
Mr. Chairman, there are those who say that the power of appointment is necessary in order to preserve checks and balances and thus prevent an abuse of executive power. Of course, I agree that it is very important to carefully guard our constitutional liberties in times of crisis, and that an over-centralization of power in the executive branch is one of the most serious dangers to that liberty. However, Mr. Chairman, during a time of crisis it is all the more important to have representatives accountable to the people making the laws. Otherwise, the citizenry has no check on the inevitable tendency of government to infringe on the people’s liberties at such a time. I would remind my colleagues that the only reason we are re-examining provisions of the PATRIOT Act is because of public concerns that this Act gives up excessive liberty for a phantom security. Appointed officials would not be as responsive to public concerns.
Patriot Act
We Cannot Afford Another $87 Billion in Iraq
September 16, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 98:12
While we nation-build in Iraq in the name of defeating terrorism, we ignore our responsibilities to protect our borders at home while we compromise the liberties of our citizens with legislation like the Patriot Act.
Patriot Act
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 2:28
Fighting Terrorism With Big Government—A Convenience or Necessity? Fighting terrorism is a top concern for most Americans. It is understandable, knowing how vulnerable we now are to an attack by our enemies. But striking out against the liberties of all Americans, with the Patriot Act, the FBI, or Guantanamo-type justice will hardly address the problem. Liberty cannot be enhanced by undermining liberty! It is never necessary to sacrifice liberty to preserve it. It’s tempting to sacrifice liberty for safety, and that is the argument used all too often by the politicians seeking more power. But even that is not true. History shows that a strong desire for safety over liberty usually results in less of both. But that does not mean we should ignore the past attacks or the threat of future attacks that our enemies might unleash. First, fighting terrorism is a cliché. Terrorism is a technique or a process, and if not properly defined, the solutions will be hard to find. Terrorism is more properly defined as an attack by a guerrilla warrior who picks the time and place of the attack because he cannot match the enemy with conventional weapons. With too broad a definition of terrorism, the temptation will be to relinquish too much liberty, being fearful that behind every door and in every suitcase lurks a terrorist- planted bomb. Narrowing the definition of terrorism and recognizing why some become enemies is crucial. Understanding how maximum security is achieved in a free society is vital. We have been told that the terrorists hate us for our wealth, our freedom, and our goodness. This war cannot be won if that belief prevails.
Patriot Act
The Financial Services Committees “Views and Estimates for 2005”
February 26, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 7:5
The committee’s ‘Views and Estimates” gives an unqualified endorsement to increased taxpayer support for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN), while ignoring the growing erosion of our financial privacy under the PATRIOT Act and similar legislation. In fact, the committee ignores the recent stealth expansion of the FBI’s power to seize records of dealers in precious metals, jewelers, and pawnshops without a warrant issued by an independent judge. Instead of serving as cheerleaders for the financial police state, the committee should act to curtail the federal government’s ability to monitor the financial affairs of law-abiding Americans.
Patriot Act
Continuity In Representation Act
22 April 2004 2004 Ron Paul 28:13
Mr. Chairman, there are those who say that the power of appointment is necessary in order to preserve checks and balances and thus prevent an abuse of executive power during a time of crisis. Of course, I agree that it is very important to carefully guard our constitutional liberties in times of crisis, and that an over-centralization of power in the executive branch is one of the most serious dangers to that liberty. However, Mr. Chairman, during a time of crisis it is all the more important to have representatives accountable to the people. Otherwise, the citizenry has no check on the inevitable tendency of Government to infringe on the people’s liberties at such a time. I would remind my colleagues that the only reason we are considering reexamining provisions of the PATRIOT Act is because of public concerns that this act gives up excessive liberty for a phantom security. Appointed officials would not be as responsive to public concerns.
Patriot Act
The House of Representatives Must be Elected!
June 2, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 36:3
Mr. Speaker, there are those who say that the power of appointment is necessary in order to preserve checks and balances and thus prevent an abuse of executive power. Of course, I agree that it is very important to carefully guard our constitutional liberties in times of crisis, and that an over-centralization of power in the executive branch is one of the most serious dangers to that liberty. However, Mr. Speaker, during a time of crisis it is all the more important to have representatives accountable to the people making the laws. Otherwise, the citizenry has no check on the inevitable tendency of government to infringe on the people’s liberties at such a time. I would remind my colleagues that the only reason we are reexamining provisions of the PATRIOT Act is because of public concerns that this Act gives up too much liberty for a phantom security. Appointed officials would not be as responsive to public concerns.
Patriot Act
Restore Rights Violated By PATRIOT Act
8 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 51:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be proper to rename this amendment and call it the “partial restoration of the fourth amendment,” and that is our attempt here. We are doing exactly what the gentleman early on suggested: this is oversight; this is our responsibility. This is the proper place to have the debate. It was the Congress that created the PATRIOT Act; it is the responsibility of the Congress to do something about it if it was a mistake. And it, indeed, was a mistake.
Patriot Act
Restore Rights Violated By PATRIOT Act
8 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 51:2
I would like to think that the American people are with us entirely, and I know a large number already are with us on trying to straighten up some of the mess caused by the Patriot Act, but I would like to say that there is one basic principle that we should approach this with, something I approach all legislation with, and that is the principle of a free society is that we never have to sacrifice liberty in order to preserve it.
Patriot Act
Restore Rights Violated By PATRIOT Act
8 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 51:3
The whole notion that the purpose of providing freedom and liberty to this country is that we have to give up some, I do not believe is necessary. It is never necessary to give up freedom to preserve freedom. I do think we made some serious mistakes. We made a mistake in passing the PATRIOT Act under conditions of an emergency and under the conditions of post-9/11. We did not do a very good job at Tora Bora. We failed to find the individuals responsible for 9/11 and we have not concentrated on the people who committed this crime. Instead, we have decided to invade and occupy a foreign country rather than protecting and providing security here, at home providing freedom for our people and more security for this country.
Patriot Act
Opposes Commemorating 9/11
9 September 2004 2004 Ron Paul 66:2
This legislation is an endorsement of the policy of restricting freedoms at home that I have consistently opposed, including praise for the creation of the bloated and impotent Department of Homeland Security, the liberty-killing PATRIOT Act, and many other futile measures. It praises the notoriously ineffective air marshal program while avoiding altogether one of the most important lessons of the September 11, 2001 tragedy; The entire disaster could have been avoided with just one gun in the hands of each of the pilots. Four guns could have prevented September 11, 2001, but we are no closer to arming pilots than we were on September 10, 2001. Shortly after the attacks, I introduced a bill to allow pilots to be armed. Eventually, a version of that bill was passed, but pilots are still not armed. I also introduced several other bills to deal with the attacks of 9/11, protect us against future attacks, and do so without sacrificing our liberty.
Patriot Act
Opposes Commemorating 9/11
9 September 2004 2004 Ron Paul 66:4
Many of my colleagues like to repeat the mantra that “freedom is under attack” in the United States. Well, they are right. Freedom is under attack in the United States, but not only from foreign terrorists. Freedom is under attack from a government that rushes to pass legislation like the PATRIOT Act, that guts civil liberties in the United States. Freedom is under attack from those who are rushing to create a national biometric identification card and internal check-points, which will force innocent Americans to prove to government authorities that they are not terrorists. Freedom is under attack from a government that is spending itself into bankruptcy at an unprecedented pace. Freedom is under attack from a foreign policy that generates millions of enemies across the globe.
Patriot Act
The 9-11 Intelligence Bill: More Bureaucracy, More Intervention, Less Freedom
October 8, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 77:6
HR 10 also broadens the definition of terrorism contained in the PATRIOT Act. HR 10 characterizes terrorism as acts intended “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” Under this broad definition, a scuffle at an otherwise peaceful pro-life demonstration might allow the federal government to label the sponsoring organization and its members as terrorists. Before dismissing these concerns, my colleagues should remember the abuse of Internal Revenue Service power by both Democratic and Republican administrations to punish political opponents, or the use of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act on anti-abortion activists. It is entirely possible that a future administration will use the new surveillance powers granted in this bill to harm people holding unpopular political views.
Patriot Act
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 81:8
Both supported the Patriot Act and its controversial attack on personal privacy.
Patriot Act
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 81:24
There will be little resistance to spending and deficits because it will be claimed they are necessary to “fight terrorism.” The irony is that Patriot Act-type regulations were all proposed before 9-11, and are now becoming a costly burden to American businesses. I’m getting more calls every day from constituents who are being harassed by government bureaucrats for “infractions” of all kinds totally unrelated to national security. This immeasurable cost from the stepped-up activity of government bureaucrats will further burden our economy as it slips toward recession — and do little to enhance homeland security.
Patriot Act
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 81:31
A casual attitude has emerged regarding civil liberties. The post 9-11 atmosphere has made it politically correct to sacrifice some of our personal liberties in the name of security, as evidenced by the Patriot Act.
Patriot Act
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 6:13
We have spent over $200 billion in these occupations, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars here at home hoping to be safer. We have created the Department of Homeland Security, passed the PATRIOT Act, and created a new super CIA agency. Our government is now permitted to monitor the Internet, read our mail, search us without proper search warrants, to develop a national ID card, and to investigate what people are reading in libraries. Ironically, illegal aliens flow into our country and qualify for driver’s licenses and welfare benefits with little restraint.
Patriot Act
Continuity In Representation Act
3 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 26:6
Mr. Chairman, there are those who say that the power of appointment is necessary in order to preserve checks and balances and thus prevent an abuse of executive power during a time of crisis. Of course, I agree that it is very important to carefully guard our constitutional liberties in times of crisis and that an over-centralization of power in the executive branch is one of the most serious dangers to that liberty. However, Mr. Chairman, during a time of crisis it is all the more important to have Representatives accountable to the people. Otherwise, the citizenry has no check on the inevitable tendency of government to infringe on the people’s liberties at such a time. I would remind my colleagues that the only reason we are considering reexamining provisions of the PATRIOT Act is because of public concerns that this act gives up excessive liberty for a phantom security. Appointed officials would not be as responsive to public concerns.
Patriot Act
PATRIOT Act Violates Fourth Amendment
15 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 64:4
The trade-off is too great. We should never trade off safety and security for our liberties, and I think that is what we have done with the PATRIOT Act.
Patriot Act
Protect Privacy
15 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 65:4
This morning, the gentleman from Vermont was on C–SPAN; and after he left the studio, a woman called in that I found very fascinating. She was from Russia and she talked about how things were started in Russia and how the police had an ability to come into their homes without search warrants. Then she said her family had an exposure in Germany and the same thing happened. It was unrestrained government’s ability to come in and know what people were doing. She spoke about this in generalities; and she was, in an alarmist sense, she was saying, and right now, in America, that is what we are doing with the PATRIOT Act, and she talked about it in general.
Patriot Act
Amend The PATRIOT Act — Part 1
21 July 2005 2005 Ron Paul 87:3
Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward amendment intended to modestly improve the PATRIOT Act, and let me just state exactly what it does. “It is the sense of Congress that the Federal government should not investigate any American citizen for alleged criminal conduct solely on the basis of citizen’s membership in a nonviolent political organization or the fact that the citizen was engaging in other lawful political activity.”
Patriot Act
Amend The PATRIOT Act — Part 1
21 July 2005 2005 Ron Paul 87:5
So this is a restatement of a fundamental principle that should be in our minds and in our law, but I think it is worthwhile to restate. And I do recognize that in the PATRIOT Act they recognize that the first amendment should be protected, and in this case I think it is an additional statement that we should be respectful of people’s rights to speak out and not be singled out for political or religious viewpoints. Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Patriot Act
Amend The PATRIOT Act — Part 1
21 July 2005 2005 Ron Paul 87:6
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. I support this amendment. I think it merely restates the fact that people who are not involved in criminal or terrorist activities have nothing to fear from the PATRIOT Act. The first amendment protects free speech. It protects political association. As long as the political association is not involved in criminal terrorist activities, we ought to encourage it even if their views are something that we disagree with. The gentleman from Texas has done a very good service to this bill with this amendment, and I hope it is adopted overwhelmingly.
Patriot Act
Amend The PATRIOT Act — Part 2
21 July 2005 2005 Ron Paul 88:4
But very briefly, I would like to say that the full thrust of this bill bothers me in the fact that I think we are treating a symptom and we are really not doing dealing with the core problem of why there are suicide terrorists willing to attack us, and I think as long as that is ignored we could pass 10 PATRIOT Acts stronger than ever and it will not solve the problem unless we eventually get to the bottom of what is the cause.
Patriot Act
Amend The PATRIOT Act — Part 2
21 July 2005 2005 Ron Paul 88:7
Mr. Chairman, the USA PATRIOT Act and Terrorism Prevention Act (H.R. 3199) in no way brings the PATRIOT Act into compliance with the Constitution or allays concerns that the powers granted to the government in the act will be used to abuse the rights of the people. Much of the discussion surrounding this bill has revolved around the failure of the bill to extend the sunset clauses.
Patriot Act
Amend The PATRIOT Act — Part 2
21 July 2005 2005 Ron Paul 88:8
However, simply sunsetting troublesome provisions does not settle the debates around the PATRIOT Act. If the PATRIOT Act is constitutional and needed, as its proponents swear, why were sunset provisions included at all? If it is unconstitutional and pernicious, why not abolish it immediately?
Patriot Act
Amend The PATRIOT Act — Part 2
21 July 2005 2005 Ron Paul 88:9
The sunset clauses do perform one useful service in that they force Congress to regularly re-examine the PATRIOT Act. As the people’s representatives, it is our responsibility to keep a close eye on the executive branch to ensure it does not abuse its power. Even if the claims of H.R. 3199’s supporters that there have been no abuses of PATRIOT Act powers under this administration are true, that does not mean that future administrations will not abuse these powers.
Patriot Act
Amend The PATRIOT Act — Part 2
21 July 2005 2005 Ron Paul 88:10
H.R. 3199 continues to violate the constitution by allowing searches and seizures of American citizens and their property without a warrant issued by an independent court upon a finding of probable cause. The drafters of the Bill of Rights considered this essential protection against an overreaching government. For example, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, popularly known as the libraries provision, allows Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts, whose standards hardly meet the constitutional requirements of the Fourth Amendment, to issue warrants for individual records, including medical and library records. H.R. 3199 does reform this provision by clarifying that it can be used to acquire the records of an American citizen only during terrorist investigations. However, this marginal change fails to bring the section up to the constitutional standard of probable cause.
Patriot Act
Amend The PATRIOT Act — Part 2
21 July 2005 2005 Ron Paul 88:11
Requiring a showing of probable cause before a warrant may be issued will in no way hamper terrorist investigations. For one thing, federal authorities would still have numerous tools available to investigate and monitor the activities of non-citizens suspected of terrorism. Second, restoring the Fourth Amendment protections would in no way interfere with the provisions of the PATRIOT Act that removed the firewalls that prevented the government’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies from sharing information.
Patriot Act
Amend The PATRIOT Act — Part 2
21 July 2005 2005 Ron Paul 88:13
The requirement that law enforcement demonstrate probable cause before a judge preserves the Founders’ system of checks and balances that protects against one branch gathering too much power. The Founders recognized that one of the chief dangers to liberty was the concentration of power in a few hands, which is why they carefully divided power among the three branches. I would remind those of my colleagues who will claim that we must set aside the constitutional requirements during war that the founders were especially concerned about the consolidation of power during times of war and national emergencies. My colleagues should also keep in mind that PATRIOT Act powers have already been used in non-terrorism related cases, most notably in a bribery investigation in Nevada.
Patriot Act
Amend The PATRIOT Act — Part 2
21 July 2005 2005 Ron Paul 88:14
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3199 does take some positive steps toward restoring respect for constitutional liberties and checks and balances that the original PATRIOT Act stripped away. However, it still leaves in place large chunks of legislation that threaten individual liberty by giving law enforcement power to snoop into American citizens’ lives without adequate oversight. This power is unnecessary to effectively fight terrorism. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.
Patriot Act
Don’t Reauthorize the Patriot Act
July 21, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 89:1
Mr. Speaker, the USA PATRIOT Act and Terrorism Prevention Act (HR 3199) in no way brings the PATRIOT Act into compliance with the Constitution or allays concerns that the powers granted to the government in the act will be used to abuse the rights of the people. Much of the discussion surrounding this bill has revolved around the failure of the bill to extend the sunset clauses.
Patriot Act
Don’t Reauthorize the Patriot Act
July 21, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 89:2
However, simply sunsetting troublesome provisions does not settle the debates around the PATRIOT Act. If the PATRIOT Act is constitutional and needed, as its proponents swear, why include sunset provisions at all? If it is unconstitutional and pernicious, why not abolish it immediately?
Patriot Act
Don’t Reauthorize the Patriot Act
July 21, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 89:3
The sunset clauses do perform one useful service in that they force Congress to regularly re-examine the PATRIOT Act. As the people’s representatives, it is our responsibility to keep a close eye on the executive branch to ensure it does not abuse its power. Even if the claims of HR 3199’s supporters that there have been no abuses of PATRIOT Act powers under this administration are true, that does not mean that future administrations will not abuse these powers.
Patriot Act
Don’t Reauthorize the Patriot Act
July 21, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 89:4
HR 3199 continues to violate the constitution by allowing searches and seizures of American citizens and their property without a warrant issued by an independent court upon a finding of probable cause. The drafters of the Bill of Rights considered this essential protection against an overreaching government. For example, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, popularly known as the library provision, allows Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts, whose standards hardly meet the constitutional requirements of the Fourth Amendment, to issue warrants for individual records, including medical and library records. HR 3199 does reform this provision by clarifying that it can be used to acquire the records of an American citizen only during terrorist investigations. However, this marginal change fails to bring the section up to the constitutional standard of probable cause.
Patriot Act
Don’t Reauthorize the Patriot Act
July 21, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 89:5
Requiring a showing of probable cause before a warrant may be issued will in no way hamper terrorist investigations. For one thing, federal authorities still would have numerous tools available to investigate and monitor the activities of non-citizens suspected of terrorism. Second, restoring the Fourth Amendment protections would in no way interfere with the provisions of the PATRIOT Act removing the firewalls that prevented the government’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies from sharing information.
Patriot Act
Don’t Reauthorize the Patriot Act
July 21, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 89:7
The requirement that law enforcement demonstrate probable cause before a judge preserves the Founders’ system of checks and balances that protects against one branch gathering too much power. The Founders recognized that one of the chief dangers to liberty was the concentration of power in a few hands, which is why they carefully divided power among the three branches. I would remind those of my colleagues who claim that we must set aside the constitutional requirements during war that the founders were especially concerned about the consolidation of power during times of war and national emergences. My colleagues should also keep in mind that PATRIOT Act powers have already been used in non-terrorism related cases, most notably in a bribery investigation in Nevada.
Patriot Act
Don’t Reauthorize the Patriot Act
July 21, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 89:8
Mr. Speaker, HR 3199 does take some positive steps toward restoring respect for constitutional liberties and checks and balances that the original PATRIOT Act stripped away. However, it still leaves in place large chunks of legislation that threaten individual liberty by giving law enforcement power to snoop into American citizens’ lives without adequate oversight. This power is unnecessary to effectively fight terrorism. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.
Patriot Act
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:69
We must remember initiating force to impose our will on others negates all the goodness for which we profess to stand. We cannot be fighting to secure our freedom if we impose laws like the Patriot Act and a national ID card on the American people.
Patriot Act
Congress Erodes Privacy
November 16, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 121:4
From the 1970s forward, national security letters were used sparingly in circumventing the legal process and search warrant requirements. Since 9-11 and the subsequent passage of the Patriot Act, however, use of these instruments has skyrocketed, from 300 annually to over 30,000. There is essentially no oversight nor understanding by the U.S. Congress of the significance of this pervasive government surveillance. It’s all shrugged off as necessary to make us safe from terrorism. Sacrificing personal liberty and privacy, the majority feels, is not a big deal.
Patriot Act
Congress Erodes Privacy
November 16, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 121:5
We soon will vote on the conference report reauthorizing the Patriot Act. Though one could argue there’s been a large grass-roots effort to discredit the Patriot Act, Congress has ignored the message. Amazingly, over 391 communities and 7 states have passed resolutions highly critical of the Patriot Act.
Patriot Act
The Blame Game
December 7, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 124:4
All wars invite abuses of civil liberties at home, and the vague declaration of war against terrorism is worse than most in this regard. As our liberties here at home are diminished by the Patriot Act and national ID card legislation, we succumb to the temptation of all empires to neglect habeas corpus, employ torture tactics, and use secret imprisonment. These domestic and foreign policy trends reflect a morally bankrupt philosophy, devoid of any concern for liberty and the rule of law.
Patriot Act
The Blame Game
December 7, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 124:35
Personal liberty at home is under attack; assaults on free speech and privacy, national ID cards, the Patriot Act, National Security letters, and challenges to habeas corpus all have been promoted;
Patriot Act
Foreign Policy
17 December 2005 2005 Ron Paul 128:4
All wars invite abuses of civil liberties at home, and this vague declaration of war against terrorism is worse than most in this regard. As our liberties here at home are diminished by the PATRIOT Act and national ID card legislation, we succumb to the temptation of all empires to spy on American citizens, neglect habeas corpus, employ torture tactics, and use secret imprisonments. These domestic and foreign policy trends reflect a morally bankrupt philosophy devoid of any concern for liberty and the rule of law.
Patriot Act
Foreign Policy
17 December 2005 2005 Ron Paul 128:25
Personal liberty at home is under attack; assaults on free speech and privacy, national ID cards, the PATRIOT Act, National Security Letters, and challenges to habeas corpus all have been promoted.
Patriot Act
S. 2271 Fails To Address The Constitutional Flaws In The PATRIOT Act
7 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 9:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, contrary to its proponents’ claims, S. 2271 fails to address the constitutional flaws in the PATRIOT Act or protect innocent Americans against future abuses of their civil liberties. Rather, passing this bill makes the permanent authorization of most of the act inevitable. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against S. 2271 in order to force the House and Senate to craft a new legislation giving the government the tools necessary to fight terrorism without sacrificing constitutional liberties.
Patriot Act
S. 2271 Fails To Address The Constitutional Flaws In The PATRIOT Act
7 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 9:2
The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee essentially admitted that S. 2271 does nothing to address the core concerns constitutionalists and civil libertarians have with the PATRIOT Act. In fact, he has announced his intention to introduce his own PATRIOT Act reform bill! However, if S. 2271 passes and PATRIOT Act extension becomes law, it is highly unlikely that this Congress will consider any other PATRIOT Act reform legislation.
Patriot Act
S. 2271 Fails To Address The Constitutional Flaws In The PATRIOT Act
7 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 9:3
USA Today’s Editorial of March 1, “Patriot Act ‘compromise’ trades liberty for safety,” accurately describes how people concerned about individual liberty should react to S. 2271’s “reforms”: “Big Deal. By any standard of respect for the Bill of Rights, those provisions never should have been in the law in the first place. What is it about the Fourth Amendment (‘The right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated’) that Congress doesn’t get?”
Patriot Act
S. 2271 Fails To Address The Constitutional Flaws In The PATRIOT Act
7 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 9:5
Madam Speaker, S. 2271 does not address the fundamental constitutional problems with the PATRIOT Act. To the contrary, S. 2271 will make most of the PATRIOT Act’s dramatic expansions of federal power a permanent feature of American life. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and work to ensure government can effectively fight terrorism without sacrificing the liberty of law-abiding Americans.
Patriot Act
Illegal Drug Problem — Part 2
9 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 13:5
Once a war is declared, whether it is a war overseas or whether it is a domestic war on some evil here, that is when the American people should look out for their civil liberties. There, the issue of privacy is attacked. So now we have a war on terrorism and we have the PATRIOT Act and all these other things that intrude on the civil rights and civil liberties of Americans, and, at the same time, not achieving a whole lot of good results.
Patriot Act
Society For Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications
29 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 49:3
Congress should examine all government programs that monitor the financial transactions of American citizens to ensure they are effective and they do not violate the rights of Americans. Unfortunately, many of my colleagues are attacking newspapers that inform the American people about government surveillance on the grounds that revealing that the federal government is monitoring financial transactions somehow damages national security. It is odd to claim that, until last Friday, neither the American people nor America’s enemies had any idea that the government is engaging in massive surveillance of financial transactions, since the government has been openly operating major financial surveillance programs since the 1970s and both the administration and Congress have repeatedly discussed increasing the government’s power to monitor financial transactions. In fact, such an expansion of the government’s ability to spy on Americans’ banking activites was a major part of the PATRIOT Act.
Patriot Act
Opposes 9/11 Resolution
13 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 77:2
Much of the legislation referenced in this legislation is legislation that I supported. For example, I voted in favor of the Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 and for the SAFE Port Act of 2006. I continue to support measures that help secure our borders and thereby make us less vulnerable to future foreign attack. However, I find it particularly unacceptable to heap praise on the PATRIOT Act, as this bill does. This act expanded the federal government’s power to an unprecedented degree at the expense not of foreign terrorists, but of law-abiding American citizens. It opened average Americans up to wide-ranging government snooping and surveillance in matters completely unrelated to terrorism. For example, the “sneak and peek” provisions of the PATRIOT Act allow law enforcement to enter someone’s home without a warrant, search that property, and never inform that citizen they had been there. Also, libraries and book stores can be forced to provide the government with citizens’ borrowing and purchasing history without showing probable cause. I see no reason to applaud such an un-American piece of legislation.
Patriot Act
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:38
The accelerated attacks on liberty started quickly after 9/11. Within weeks, the PATRIOT Act was overwhelmingly passed by Congress. Though the final version was unavailable up to a few hours before the vote, no Member had sufficient time. Political fear of not doing something, even something harmful, drove the Members of Congress to not question the contents, and just voted for it. A little less freedom for a little more perceived safety was considered a fair trade-off, and the majority of Americans applauded.
Patriot Act
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:39
The PATRIOT Act, though, severely eroded the system of checks and balances by giving the government the power to spy on law-abiding citizens without judicial supervision. The several provisions that undermine the liberties of all Americans include sneak- and-peek searches, a broadened and more vague definition of domestic terrorism, allowing the FBI access to libraries and bookstore records without search warrants or probable cause, easier FBI initiation of wiretaps and searches, as well as roving wiretaps, easier access to information on American citizens’ use of the Internet, and easier access to e-mail and financial records of all American citizens.
Patriot Act
Living by the Sword
13 March 2008 2008 Ron Paul 14:17
No more PATRIOT Acts!
Patriot Act
Statement Before the Financial Services Committee, On UIGEA
April 2, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 19:5
The regulations and underlying bill also force financial institutions to act as law enforcement officers. This is another pernicious trend that has accelerated in the aftermath of the Patriot Act, the deputization of private businesses to perform intrusive enforcement and surveillance functions that the federal government is unwilling to perform on its own.
Patriot Act
Statement on HR 3221
July 24, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 48:5
Finally, HR 3221 increases the federal debt limit by $800 billion. We are told that CBO has scored this bill at a cost of $25 billion, but this debt limit increase belies that. The Federal Reserve has already propped up the housing and financial markets to the tune of over $300 billion, and this raise of the debt limit indicates that the cost of this newest bailout will likely be even more costly. I am dismayed that my colleagues have not learned the lessons of the Patriot Act and Sarbanes-Oxley. Massive bills passed in knee-jerk reaction to crisis events will always be poorly written, burdensome and expensive to taxpayers, and destructive of liberty.
Patriot Act
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008
25 July 2008 2008 Ron Paul 52:5
Finally, H.R. 3221 increases the Federal debt limit by $800 billion. We are told that CBO has scored this bill at a cost of $25 billion, but this debt limit increase belies that. The Federal Reserve has already propped up the housing and financial markets to the tune of over $300 billion, and this raise of the debt limit indicates that the cost of this newest bailout will likely be even more costly. I am dismayed that my colleagues have not learned the lessons of the PATRIOT Act and Sarbanes- Oxley. Massive bills passed in knee- jerk reaction to crisis events will always be poorly written, burdensome and expensive to taxpayers, and destructive of liberty.
Patriot Act
Predictions for an Unwritten Future
29 April 2002 Texas Straight Talk 29 April 2002 verse 21 ... Cached
Erosion of civil liberties will continue as our government responds to fears of terrorist acts by making generous use of unconstitutional powers obtained through the Patriot Act.
Patriot Act
Monitor thy Neighbor
22 July 2002 Texas Straight Talk 22 July 2002 verse 2 ... Cached
Opposition to the Patriot Act, legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President last year, is growing. Americans are beginning to understand that many precious liberties have been put in jeopardy by the government’s rush to enact new laws in the wake of September 11th. Federal law enforcement agencies now have broad authority to conduct secret, warrantless searches of homes; monitor phone and internet activity; access financial records; and undertake large-scale tracking of American citizens through huge databases. We’re told this is necessary to fight the unending war on terror, but in truth the federal government has been seeking these powers for years. September 11th simply provided an excuse to accelerate the process and convince all of us to relinquish more and more of our privacy to the federal government.
Patriot Act
The Homeland Security Non-Debate
29 July 2002 Texas Straight Talk 29 July 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
I did vote for several amendments to the bill that would maintain the strength and independence of federal agencies that are vitally important to the 14th congressional district in Texas. However, I voted a resounding NO on final passage. This legislation will have an even greater negative impact than the terrible Patriot Act passed shortly after September 11th.
Patriot Act
Trust Us, We're the Government
25 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 2003 verse 2 ... Cached
Attorney General John Ashcroft has embarked on a bizarre promotional tour to counter growing public opposition to the Patriot Act. The administration clearly is worried by recent votes in Congress to limit the scope of the Act, votes that reflect the willingness of even GOP loyalists to buck the president on the issue. So Mr. Ashcroft is visiting several cities to give a stump speech that essentially says this: Trust us- we’re the government, and we say the Patriot Act does not threaten civil liberties.
Patriot Act
Trust Us, We're the Government
25 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
Mr. Ashcroft complains that the Patriot Act is misunderstood. But it’s not the American public’s fault nobody knows exactly what the Patriot Act does. The Act contains over 500 pages of detailed legalese, the full text of which was neither read nor made available to Congress before it was voted on- which by itself should have convinced members to vote against it. Many of the surveillance powers authorized in the Act are not clearly defined and have not yet been tested. When they are tested, court challenges are sure to follow. The Act’s complexity is even more troubling when we consider how powers given to the Justice department today might be abused by future administrations.
Patriot Act
Trust Us, We're the Government
25 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
It is clear, however, that the Patriot Act expands the government’s ability to monitor us. The Act eases federal rules for search warrants in some cases; allows expanded wiretaps and internet monitoring; allows secret “sneak and peek” searches; and even permits federal agents to examine library and bookstore records. On these grounds alone it should be soundly rejected.
Patriot Act
Freedom vs. Security: A False Choice
31 May 2004 Texas Straight Talk 31 May 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
The misnamed Patriot Act, presented to the public as an anti-terrorism measure, actually focuses on American citizens rather than foreign terrorists. For example, the definition of "terrorism" for federal criminal purposes has been greatly expanded; future administrations may consider you a terrorist if you belong to a pro-gun group, a citizen militia, or a pro-life organization. Legitimate protest against the government could place you (and tens of thousands of other Americans) under federal surveillance. Similarly, your internet use can be monitored without your knowledge, and your internet provider can be forced to hand over user information to law enforcement without a warrant or subpoena.
Patriot Act
The 9-11 Commission Charade
23 August 2004 Texas Straight Talk 23 August 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
The Commissioners recommend the government spend billions of dollars spreading pro-US propaganda overseas, as if that will convince the world to love us. What we have forgotten in the years since the end of the Cold War is that actions speak louder than words. The US didn't need propaganda in the captive nations of Eastern Europe during the Cold War because people knew us by our deeds. They could see the difference between the United States and their Soviet overlords. That is why, given the first chance, they chose freedom. Yet everything we have done in response to the 9-11 attacks, from the Patriot Act to the war in Iraq, has reduced freedom in America. Spending more money abroad or restricting liberties at home will do nothing to deter terrorists, yet this is exactly what the 9-11 Commission recommends.
Patriot Act
A Texas Platform for the GOP
30 August 2004 Texas Straight Talk 30 August 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
The Texas party platform is similarly bold when it comes to terrorism, civil liberties, and privacy. Rather than promoting the current mantra that security is our ultimate goal, the platform reminds us that liberty is our most important value. The platform calls for repealing portions of the Patriot Act, calls for less information gathering by government, opposes property seizures without due process, and opposes the creation of a national ID card. The platform asserts that "A perpetual state of national emergency allows unrestricted growth of government,” and "We believe the current greatest threat to our individual liberties is overreaching government controls established under the guise of preventing terrorism.” You won’t hear this kind of language at the national Republican convention.
Patriot Act
Reject the National ID Card
06 September 2004 Texas Straight Talk 06 September 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
Congress has embraced the 9/11 Commission report uncritically since its release in July. Now Congress is rushing to write each 9/11 Commission recommendation into law before the November election. In the same way Congress rushed to pass the PATRIOT Act after the September 11 attacks to be seen "doing something," it looks like Congress is about to make the same mistake again of rushing to pass liberty-destroying legislation without stopping to consider the consequences. Because it is so controversial, we may see legislation mandating a national identification card with biometric identifiers hidden in bills implementing 9/11 Commission recommendations. We have seen this technique used in the past on controversial measures.
Patriot Act
Reconsidering the Patriot Act
02 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 02 May 2005 verse 1 ... Cached
Reconsidering the Patriot Act
Patriot Act
Reconsidering the Patriot Act
02 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 02 May 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
When Congress passed the Patriot Act in the emotional aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks, a sunset provision was inserted in the bill that causes certain sections to expire at the end of 2005. But this begs the question: If these provisions are critical tools in the fight against terrorism, why revoke them after five years? Conversely, if these provisions violate civil liberties, why is it acceptable to suspend the Constitution for any amount of time?
Patriot Act
Reconsidering the Patriot Act
02 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 02 May 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
Supporters of the Patriot Act argue that its provisions have not been abused since its passage in 2001. In essence, Justice Department officials are claiming, “Trust us-- we’re the government and we say the Patriot Act does not threaten civil liberties.”
Patriot Act
Reconsidering the Patriot Act
02 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 02 May 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
The Patriot Act waters down the Fourth amendment by expanding the federal government's ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight. The requirement of a search warrant and probable cause strikes a balance between effective law enforcement and civil liberties. Any attempt to dilute the warrant requirement threatens innocent citizens with a loss of their liberty. This is particularly true of provisions that allow for issuance of nationwide search warrants that are not specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight.
Patriot Act
Reconsidering the Patriot Act
02 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 02 May 2005 verse 10 ... Cached
It's easy for elected officials in Washington to tell the American people that government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism. Such assurances inevitably are followed by proposals either to restrict the constitutional liberties of the American people or spend vast sums from the federal treasury. We must understand that politicians and bureaucrats always seek to expand their power, without regard to the long-term consequences. If you believe in smaller government, ask yourself one simple question: Does the Patriot Act increase or decrease the power of the federal government over your life? The answer is obvious to those who understand that freedom cannot be exchanged for security.
Patriot Act
The Patriot Act Four Years Later
25 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 25 July 2005 verse 1 ... Cached
The Patriot Act Four Years Later
Patriot Act
The Patriot Act Four Years Later
25 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 25 July 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
Congress passed legislation last week that reauthorizes the Patriot Act for another 10 years, although the bill faced far more opposition than the original Act four years ago. I’m heartened that more members of Congress are listening to their constituents, who remain deeply skeptical about the Patriot Act and expansions of federal police power in general. They rightfully wonder why Congress is so focused on American citizens, while bin Laden and other terrorist leaders still have not been captured.
Patriot Act
The Patriot Act Four Years Later
25 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 25 July 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
The tired arguments we’re hearing today are that same ones we heard in 2001 when the Patriot Act was passed in the emotional aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks. If the Patriot Act is constitutional and badly needed, as its proponents swear, why were sunset provisions included at all? If it’s unconstitutional and pernicious, why not abolish it immediately? All of this nonsense about sunsets and reauthorizations merely distracts us from the real issue, which is personal liberty. America was not founded on a promise of security, it was founded on a promise of personal liberty to pursue happiness.
Patriot Act
The Patriot Act Four Years Later
25 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 25 July 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
One prominent Democratic opined on national television that “most of the 170 page Patriot Act is fine,” but that it needs some fine tuning. He then stated that he opposed the ten-year reauthorization bill on the grounds that Americans should not have their constitutional rights put on hold for a decade. His party’s proposal, however, was to reauthorize the Patriot Act for only four years, as though a shorter moratorium on constitutional rights would be acceptable! So much for the opposition party and its claim to stand for civil liberties.
Patriot Act
The Patriot Act Four Years Later
25 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 25 July 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
Unfortunately, some of my congressional colleagues referenced the recent London bombings during the debate, insinuating that opponents of the Patriot Act somehow would be responsible for a similar act here at home. I won’t even dignify that slur with the response it deserves. Let’s remember that London is the most heavily monitored city in the world, with surveillance cameras recording virtually all public activity in the city center. British police officials are not hampered by our 4th amendment nor our numerous due process requirements. In other words, they can act without any constitutional restrictions, just as supporters of the Patriot Act want our own police to act. Despite this they were not able to prevent the bombings, proving that even a wholesale surveillance society cannot be made completely safe against determined terrorists. Congress misses the irony entirely. The London bombings don’t prove the need for the Patriot Act, they prove the folly of it.
Patriot Act
The Patriot Act Four Years Later
25 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 25 July 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
The Patriot Act, like every political issue, boils down to a simple choice: Should we expand government power, or reduce it? This is the fundamental political question of our day, but it’s quickly forgotten by politicians who once promised to stand for smaller government. Most governments, including our own, tend to do what they can get away with rather than what the law allows them to do. All governments seek to increase their power over the people they govern, whether we want to recognize it or not. The Patriot Act is a vivid example of this. Constitutions and laws don’t keep government power in check; only a vigilant populace can do that.
Patriot Act
Domestic Surveillance and the Patriot Act
26 December 2005 Texas Straight Talk 26 December 2005 verse 1 ... Cached
Domestic Surveillance and the Patriot Act
Patriot Act
Domestic Surveillance and the Patriot Act
26 December 2005 Texas Straight Talk 26 December 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
Public concerns about the misnamed Patriot Act are having an impact, as the Senate last week refused to reauthorize the bill for several years. Instead Congress will be back in Washington next month to consider many of the Act's most harmful provisions.
Patriot Act
Domestic Surveillance and the Patriot Act
26 December 2005 Texas Straight Talk 26 December 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
We're told that September 11 th changed everything, that new government powers like the Patriot Act are necessary to thwart terrorism. But these are not the most dangerous times in American history, despite the self-flattery of our politicians and media. This is a nation that expelled the British, saw the White House burned to the ground in 1814, fought two world wars, and faced down the Soviet Union. September 11th does not justify ignoring the Constitution by creating broad new federal police powers. The rule of law is worthless if we ignore it whenever crises occur.
Patriot Act
Domestic Surveillance and the Patriot Act
26 December 2005 Texas Straight Talk 26 December 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
Some Senators last week complained that the Patriot Act is misunderstood. But it's not the American public's fault nobody knows exactly what the Patriot Act does. The Act contains over 500 pages of detailed legalese, the full text of which was neither read nor made available to Congress in a reasonable time before it was voted on- which by itself should have convinced members to vote against it. Many of the surveillance powers authorized in the Act are not clearly defined and have not yet been tested. When they are tested, court challenges are sure to follow. It is precisely because we cannot predict how the Patriot Act will be interpreted and used in future decades that we should question it today.
Patriot Act
The Fear Factor
30 July 2007 Texas Straight Talk 30 July 2007 verse 8 ... Cached
To calm fears, Americans accepted the patriot act and the doctrine of pre-emptive war. We tolerated new laws that allow the government to snoop on us, listen to our phone calls, track our financial dealings, make us strip down at airports and even limited the rights of habeas corpus and trial by jury. Like some dysfunctional episode of the twilight zone, we allowed the summit of our imagination to be linked up with the pit of our fears.
Patriot Act
Surrender Should Not be an Option
02 September 2007 Texas Straight Talk 02 September 2007 verse 2 ... Cached
Faced with dwindling support of the Iraq War, the warhawks are redoubling their efforts. They imply we are in Iraq attacking those who attacked us, and yet this is not the case. As we know, Saddam Hussein, though not a particularly savory character, had nothing to do with 9/11. The neo-cons claim surrender should not be an option. In the same breath they claim we were attacked because of our freedoms. Why then, are they so anxious to surrender our freedoms with legislation like the Patriot Act, a repeal of our 4th amendment rights, executive orders, and presidential signing statements? With politicians like these, who needs terrorists? Do they think if we destroy our freedoms for the terrorists they will no longer have a reason to attack us? This seems the epitome of cowardice coming from those who claim a monopoly on patriotic courage.
Patriot Act
The Sunlight Rule
16 September 2007 Texas Straight Talk 16 September 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
Of course, the most well-known example of this phenomenon might be the Patriot Act. Legislators passed the 300+ page bill less than a day after it was introduced, many out of an urgency to do something. But we are sent to Washington to make informed decisions on public policy. The very least constituents expect is that their elected representatives read the legislation citizens will be subject to, and taxed for. And once they have read it, to weigh the constitutionality and the merits of the legislation. How can lawmakers possibly do that without reasonable time allotted?
Patriot Act
The Emerging Surveillance State
07 April 2008 Texas Straight Talk 07 April 2008 verse 7 ... Cached
We should remember that former New York governor Eliot Spitzer was brought down by a provision of the PATRIOT Act that required enhanced bank monitoring of certain types of financial transactions. Yet we were told that the PATRIOT Act was needed to catch terrorists, not philanderers. The extraordinary power the government has granted itself to look into our private lives can be used for many purposes unrelated to fighting terrorism. We can even see how expanded federal government surveillance power might be used to do away with political rivals.
Texas Straight Talk from 20 December 1996 to 23 June 2008 (573 editions) are included in this Concordance. Texas Straight Talk after 23 June 2008 is in blog form on Rep. Paul’s Congressional website and is not included in this Concordance.
Remember, not everything in the concordance is Ron Paul’s words. Some things he quoted, and he added some newspaper and magazine articles to the Congressional Record. Check the original speech to see.