hosted.ap.org — Exasperated, Feingold finally gives up saying "[the] White House sees any effort to protect civil liberties as a sign of weakness". Will we continue to accelerate down the slippery slope? How far will our civil liberties get eroded before we say enough?
Feb 16, 2006 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountFeb 16, 2006
hahaha...that is hilarious mcewen98
Closed AccountFeb 16, 2006
You can also get rounded up for not doing anyting illegal, and held without so much as a phone call.AKA Padilla.
el_jefeFeb 16, 2006
"WAIT! I've got an idea...Instead of flagging certain books people might check out of the library, why doesn't the government organize huge rallies festooned with military regalia where "patriots" and true believers can burn the offending material in large bonfires to prove they're loyalty to the cause."**sarcasm***And why not stop there. We can detain everyone that has the same color of skin and religious beliefs as "terrorists" and hold them in camps. If we rid the planet of these people the world will be a better place. ***sarcasm***
kramFeb 16, 2006
@el_jefe Herr Bush has already begun the cleansing...have a look see....<a class="user" href="http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Guantanamo_Detainees">http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Guantanamo_Detainees</a>
locojonesFeb 17, 2006
@Svartbjorn"Lots of extreme comments and nailbiting, but has anyone got a clear example of even one case of the clear abuse of this power? There are examples of the clear use of this power to prevent further attacks, but every time I have read about the Patriot act bein used to prosecute somone the truth was it was never used."The fact that there may or may not be concrete examples of its abuse right this instant doesn't mean that the potential for abuse shouldn't be cause for concern and debate, especially with regard to many of the subversions of the Fourth Amendment. This government passed this bill immediately after the attacks, justifying its need to protect America in a time of war. Yet, in this most current article, we are seeing our elected representatives and this administration staunchy objecting to any sunset provisions on the most egregious portions of the act. This makes me pause and ask, "Why?" More specifically, why do we need to make permanent an act passed during a time of war, designed to provide alleged tools to law enforcement during a time of war, unless the end result is to provide the administration with all the power it needs to encroach into other once protected areas during peacetime. The only rational answer I can conceive of is that 9/11 was used as a pretext to pass power-consolidating legislation that wouldn't have a chance of surviving scrutiny at any other time.So you may trust your President with this power right now. But what happens a couple years down the line when the fervor over terrorists running rampant across the face of the globe has died down, and this power, in the hands of someone you may not approve of, has then turned its attentions onto the American people. Because having read the act, I can tell you that the definition of terrorist in it is very broad, and can include domestic persons.To close, I ask you this -- Can you provide any concrete examples of how the Patriot Act has prevented any attacks that wouldn't have otherwise been prevented without it? My guess is that you can't, which again makes me wonder why it's necessary, especially in a time where the President has plainly stated that many of the Act's secret spying powers are inherent to the Executive office under the Constitution.
theone3Feb 17, 2006
Same reason this one was buried: <a class="user" href="http://digg.com/links/Secret_Laws">http://digg.com/links/Secret_Laws</a>