It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul voted to not protect children from harm

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by kro32

Ron Paul voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids.



This is the bill he voted against:


Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would assign a national coordinator for AMBER alerts. AMBER alerts is an alert system for missing children, make available additional protections for children and set stricter punishments for sex offenders. Two-time child sex offenders would be subjected to mandatory life sentence. The measure would make it a crime to pander visual illustrations of children as child pornography. It would increase maximum sentences for a number of specified crimes against children. It would also make it a crime to take a trip to foreign countries and engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor. It also would enlarge law enforcement’s wiretap and electronic surveillance abilities in investigations of child pornography. Reference: Child Abduction Prevention Act; Bill S 151 ; vote number 2003-127 on Apr 10, 2003


Now you are probably asking yourself why any normal thinking person would oppose such a thing as this. Well his reasons are that it's not in the Constitution......what?


However, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that making the AMBER Alert system a Federal program is neither constitutionally sound nor effective law enforcement. All Americans should be impressed at the demonstrated effectiveness of the AMBER system in locating missing and kidnapped children. However, I would ask my colleagues to consider that one of the factors that makes the current AMBER system so effective is that the AMBER Alert system is not a Federal program. Instead, states and local governments developed AMBER Alerts on their own, thus ensuring that each AMBER system meets the unique needs of individual jurisdictions. Once the AMBER Alert system becomes a one-size-fits all Federal program (with standards determined by DC-based bureaucrats instead of community-based law enforcement officials) local officials will not be able to tailor the AMBER Alert to fit their unique circumstances. Thus, nationalizing the AMBER system will cause this important program to lose some of its effectiveness.


chip91.wordpress.com...

I'm sorry but protecting children should be bound by no jurisdiction whatsoever and should be a priority no matter what any piece of paper says. To date there have been 523 children recovered from predators using this system and they might very well be dead if it had been up to Ron Paul.

www.missingkids.com...

Ron Paul for President...yeah ok


OP - the title of this thread is a lie. I'm going to ask you to change it to something accurate, please. Thanks.


I agree, this thread title is SLANDER.

OP, either you are misinformed, a troll or dont understand what you read.




posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Mods: Please do something about the title of the thread. THanks.
edit on 10-8-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
for those people who are defending paul and the constitution

and then go "change the title"

well do you beleive in the constittion as in free speech?

hey he said it but that doesnt mean any of us have to agree with it.

and no paul voted for state rights thats all it is not the governments responsibility to be mother and father to us all.

if anyone knows anything about paul they know this,



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Backslider
 



That's even in the main original post. That it is already developed on it's own. And is working.
I would say that Ron Paul voted to retain the efficiency of the original program.
So yeah...Paul is right again.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
I actually think that RP's vote protects the children. Once the Feds get their hands on it god knows how they'll mess up the system.

Do not trust these evil people....especially not with your children.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
reply to post by Backslider
 



That's even in the main original post. That it is already developed on it's own. And is working.
I would say that Ron Paul voted to retain the efficiency of the original program.
So yeah...Paul is right again.


The title is slanderous and a lie. Can you please change the title or close the thread?



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Having read the article and lived in several states the following can be stated:
Ron Paul is absolutely correct in his assessment of the Amber system. It should not be nor considered to be a federal matter or put in the control over the federal government for the following reasons.
The laws are the same state per state, however, they also are different, as a matter of response and what all the local officials have to deal with. If a child goes missing in say Tucson Arizona, it would require a different response, than say Los Angeles California, as the situations and places are very different and the authorities would have to look for such in those cases. To federalize a system like the Amber alert, would require a uniformity that would be far more disastrous in the long run than the individual responses there are now. The laws in all 50 states and all of the territories would have to be changed to reflect this, and then there would be the cost of implementing said system. Children who are kidnapped or disappear, the amber system helps provide a good chance for bringing that child back, but the responses are tailored for each area, rather than uniformed across the board, as the local authorities have good ideas on where to look, and where to begin. They would know the hazards and the terrain a lot better than the federal government that is bound to over look something or leave gaping holes where such could slip through. (You know like the southern boarder where people cross both ways without passing through the checkpoints, or up north where towns are one country on one side of the street and another country on the other.) Leave it to the states, let them deal with such as they can, so far they are doing a very good job, it is budgeted out and ultimately it has been successful. In this case it is where they want to fix something that is neither broke, nor needing interference by the federal government, with additional rules and regulations, and really does not need any interference on the part of the federal government.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
*************************************************************************************************************************************
Please don't make requests of staff within a thread. It's off topic and by all rights should be removed. If you have a request or an issue that needs to be addressed, use the Alert function.
*************************************************************************************************************************************



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


You don't really know how the Amber alert system works do you?

It is a state and local issue. The more local the better actually.

As I recall during an Amber alert the electronic signs on the freeway change from current road conditions to something along the lines of [CHILD ABDUCTION RED TOYOTA LIC ABC123] and people driving start becoming aware of similar cars and call 911 when they spot a potential match.

I don't know if the alert is for the whole state (I don't think it is) I think it is county wide, several neighboring counties, or a 100+ mile radius.

It would be dangerous and ultimately pointless for people in Florida to read about a child abduction 3000 miles away. Which is what would happen if it were a national program. Plus people would become desensitized to the alerts.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
"Well Mr. Smith, it seems that the people that snatched your daughter and ran have had more than enough time to leave the state by now. We could issue a federal Amber alert."

"No, no no. States rights and all that. I can just have another daughter."

This is the argument being made in this thread?



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by Kitilani
 


Yes, that's it exactly. I'm so glad you get the point.





As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani
"Well Mr. Smith, it seems that the people that snatched your daughter and ran have had more than enough time to leave the state by now. We could issue a federal Amber alert."

"No, no no. States rights and all that. I can just have another daughter."

This is the argument being made in this thread?


Maybe you should do a little research. An AMBER alert can be issued accross multiple areas and states.

Can AMBER Alerts be issued across state and jurisdictional lines?
Yes. Many states have formal memorandums of understanding with other states and there are currently 28 regional plans. If law enforcement has reason to believe that the child has been taken across state lines, the AMBER state coordinator will ask that state to issue an alert. This happened when a boy from a Chicago suburb was abducted. Law enforcement had reason to believe the child was in Indiana and then taken to California. In both instances Indiana and California issued an alert at Illinois’ request. The child was recovered in California. Many states have informal agreements with other states to issue AMBER Alerts upon request

www.amberalert.gov...



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


You don't seem to realize that the Amber Alert System actually passed and has been in place for many many years and you are correct that it's working out great. There was no system in place before this so Ron Paul was definetly wrong to have not voted for it.

I was just bringing this up as to what his view have been over the course of his career and how you may interpret that into his job as President. Obviously he doesn't always vote with the American people and puts his own ideology first.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrOysterhead
Maybe you should do a little research.


Maybe you should go back and read the thread from start to finish.

An AMBER alert can be issued accross multiple areas and states.


Yes, I am more than aware of that.


Can AMBER Alerts be issued across state and jurisdictional lines?
Yes. Many states have formal memorandums of understanding with other states and there are currently 28 regional plans. If law enforcement has reason to believe that the child has been taken across state lines, the AMBER state coordinator will ask that state to issue an alert. This happened when a boy from a Chicago suburb was abducted. Law enforcement had reason to believe the child was in Indiana and then taken to California. In both instances Indiana and California issued an alert at Illinois’ request. The child was recovered in California. Many states have informal agreements with other states to issue AMBER Alerts upon request

www.amberalert.gov...


I know how Amber alerts do actually work. What we are discussing is how Ron Paul thought they should work. I think they work great the way they are now, run across the federal level.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


I would vote NO too!
Obviously the states have it under control IMO. Why give BIG GOVT more things to do?

Yes Amber alert is great!
Lets not forget that it is a state issue
I think people are forgetting where the lines are drawn when it comes to federal and state laws!



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
I cant't help it, I just can't!



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 
Just curious - are you able to provide any information or reference any studies about the impact and effectively of the AMBER Alert system since this legislation was passed in 2003?

Also, any information on the other impacts would be appreciated in regards to the other specifics of the bill, as far as the death penalty changes, minimum mandatory sentences, the increased wiretapping authority, etc.

I'd like to see something comprehensive showing the net impacts of this bill, both pro- and con-, instead of just using it for "Ron Paul hates kids" political grandstanding.

Can you provide something showing it's actually become more effective than it was prior to this legislation? This is a sincere request, since you seem pretty concerned about it I'm hoping you've actually spent some time researching it.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
By Dr. Paul taking this stance on the Amber Alert program; he just lost most of the vote from MOTHERS because his opponent will use this to his advantage. It's politics....even the appearance of elitism can be devastating.

Dr. Paul if you read this....I can help your campaign by helping you avoid looking like something you are not; but this appears insensitive and appearances sometimes mean more than the truth. u2u me.
edit on 10-8-2011 by whaaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani
"Well Mr. Smith, it seems that the people that snatched your daughter and ran have had more than enough time to leave the state by now. We could issue a federal Amber alert."

"No, no no. States rights and all that. I can just have another daughter."

This is the argument being made in this thread?


A nationwide amber alert system exists. It's running and working. What part of the original message didn't you understand? No one wants the Federal government running it into the ground and ruining it.




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join