SteelyDan
February 8, 2003, 01:14 AM
Where do you draw the line on efforts to fight domestic terrorism? This is a really tough issue for me, and I don't pretend to know the answer. On the one hand, we'd be crazy not to take strong steps to prevent terroristic attacks, and I'm generally supportive of government and law enforcement efforts directed toward this end, but at the same time I can't get over this fear of the "enemy within," and the fact that the government can't be fully trusted. The first Patriot Act was about all I could stomach, and even then I had some reservations.
Now, it appears there's a plan for Patriot Act II, with even more sweeping governmental powers (and less privacy, less judicial review, etc.):
http://www.public-i.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=502&L1=10&L2=10&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0
I'm really torn about this. If it's absolutely necessary to protect our way of life, then how can we say "no," but doesn't the proposal endanger exactly those rights we're supposedly trying to protect?
Whatever the answer is, this isn't something that should be approved without some public debate, but it sounds like the government has been trying to sneak it in under the radar screen.
Now, it appears there's a plan for Patriot Act II, with even more sweeping governmental powers (and less privacy, less judicial review, etc.):
http://www.public-i.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=502&L1=10&L2=10&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0
I'm really torn about this. If it's absolutely necessary to protect our way of life, then how can we say "no," but doesn't the proposal endanger exactly those rights we're supposedly trying to protect?
Whatever the answer is, this isn't something that should be approved without some public debate, but it sounds like the government has been trying to sneak it in under the radar screen.