Thread: How is the patriot act different from what Abraham Lincoln did?

During the Civil War, Lincoln appropriated powers no previous President had wielded: he used his war powers to proclaim a blockade, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, spent money without congressional authorization, and imprisoned 18,000 suspected Confederate sympathizers without trial.


Imagine, the uproar it would create is a president did something similar today.

Your question and details seem to provide two different opinions on the Patriot Act. To me, the suspension of most of the Bill of Rights and Constitution isn't a good thing, especially the murky circumstances in which it was passed.

More like a dull howl. The people are so brainwashed and stupid they'll except anything as long as they can sit in front of their tv and not have anyone bother them.

people back then weren't a bunch of beotches.

If you don't know the difference between the civil war and war on terrorism, then there's not any hope for you.

It's not all that different, but that doesn't make the Patriot Act right. It made Lincoln wrong.

Yeah, it turns out Lincoln was a human. Not that he wasn't awesome, he held this country together during a horrendous time period longer than it takes most of us to figure out who is and who is not a Muslim and why it doesn't matter anyway. But he did make mistakes.

The difference is there was a civil war going on.

Yeah, let's hope that we don't have a civil war.

.. not to mention what FDR did to the Japanese americans, and the German Long Island sabateurs

Lincoln was dealing with a Civil War. Americans were at war with their own government. Needless to say, that isn't at all what is happening today. So, unless the government considers us to be the enemy, there isn't any need for our President to become dictator for a while. And our government doesn't have sufficient cause to suspend our rights in order to deal with a foreign threat.