Posted on 06/14/2004 1:02:19 PM PDT by ellery
Edited on 06/29/2004 7:10:43 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
It might be reasonable to further restrict their use, or to have more supervision of their use, but just letting them be publicized is not reasonable.
how about catching a thief who steals my hard earned money? Or a thug who beats up old women?
Where do you draw the line? Why not have a police state so we all can be "safe"?
Excellent example.
The law passed to fight organized crime was the RICO act. It was broad in scope but its proponets said it was sorely needed and would only to be used against mob bosses.
It was later used against abortion protesters (SURPRISE!), and today is routinely used against suspects that have nothing to do with organized crime. RICO is rivaled only by seatbelt laws as the clearest textbook case example of mission creep and incrementalism.
And now the RICO act is being used as an example of why government should have yet more power?
You got that right......by the way, ever seen a good definition anywhere for what constitutes a "domestic enemy"?
LOL! How absurd.
Strippers and hookers are now jihadis?
They needed the Patriot Act for that? Wow!
Beautiful. Enjoy the Nanny state.
Rights are too dangerous to be afforded to mere citizens.
a good definition anywhere for what constitutes a "domestic enemy"?
Anybody who questions the govt.
Why guess when we can use the Arizona FBI 's definition?
Of note:
"Right wing extremists - "Defenders of the Constitution against federal government and the UN"
"Refuse to identify themselves"
"Request authority for (traffic) stop" (Yeah, how dare we ask why we were pulled over?)
"Make numerous references to US Constitution."
"Attempt to 'police the police'".
But always remember, if you haven't done anything wrong (or refer to the Constitution) you have nothing to worry about! LOL
I want to state for everyone who reads this thread, and everyone who catalogs such threads and investigates troublesome posters in secret, that I wholeheartedly support whatever they want, and however much of it they want, because I know it's all for our own good, and doesn't have anything to do with personal power, or any silly police state conspiracies, and the new power wouldn't ever be used anyway, and then it would only be used on really mean scrungy foreigners who came here to sneak around and try to kill all of us who voted republican, and will certainly do so again, I promise, forever...
And that stupid law about only two terms for presidents... What's up with that?
Lots of people agree that citizens shouldn't have the truth to make decisions by. The elite feed 'em lies "for their own good".
I have a different opinion of a citizen's responsiblity in a republic.
I say unconstitutional and excessive, and I would add that the FBI (Fumbling Bureaucratic Idiots) would prove how unwise it is by delivering an additional 1,000,000 files to Hitlery and Toon so they can assist in cracking down on their terrorist opposition.
For example, an agency (pre-Patriot) could obtain billing records for a customer of a dialup internet provider, but could not for the customer of a cable modem because "cable" as written in the old laws only considered cable to be cable TV. There are a number of these examples. Patriot also was essential for tearing down the Gorelick wall.
The Patriot Act has been savaged beyond all sense of proportion and any tweaks that might need to be made will be overshadowed by the bloviating of the hysterical opposition.
"Rights are too dangerous for citizens".....is that why they turn them into privileges or "civil rights"??
Oh, so I guess all these cities across the country that are repudiating the Patriot Act just don't have a clue?
Those are all good things and loopholes needed closing.
However, when they turn around and use if for the type of stuff they have, why should we buy it a second time?
They destroy their own case.
RICO for Abortion protesters.
PATRIOT to go after strip clubs.
That's why they have a serious lack of credibility.
List 'em. You'll get your answer.
On second thought, don't answer that.
And I don't get the Klaatu/Gort reference, but if you like, I can give you a less obscure reference for the same point.
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to government men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
- Federalist #51
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.