I am still waiting for the original poster to define what should be done in lieu of the Patriot Act. It is easy to say something is bad and potentially threatening but it isn't necessarily helpful. The heavy lifting is in designing a plan that is effective but without threat. Let's here what he would do differently?
I'd say placing restrictions on foreign visitors and upgrading the security at our borders before instilling acts that could be (and IMO probably WILL be) used against American citizens would be a handy start. That's my opinion, though, mind you.
I would like to understand clearly what you are saying. Is your contention that concurrent with the swearing in ceremony the Bush Adminstration someone drafted these exact line items currently known as the Patriot Act?
First of all...a correction, I made an error. There was a report submitted by the Hart-Rudman Commission in January 2001 that was the basis of the Office of Homeland Defense. (Might just be me, but I have a hard time separating the "Patriot" Act from the creation of the Office of Homeland Security.)
Also, here is a link I found re: JoeEveryman's mention of James Steinberg's preliminary idea for a form of "Patriot" Act. (I'll search for some more info, if this isn't enough...so much to sift through...I suggest you order out for pizza, this all takes a while to read.)
The logical continuation and connectivity from the paragraph above is with this legislation already drafted, the Feds intentionally allowed the attack to happen so that they could enact the Patriot Act. Is that what you are saying? The other way this can be read is that the Patriot Act is part of a planned strategy to usurp our rights, waiting in the wings for an opportune time to roll it out. Maybe that's what you are saying. A clarification would be appreciated.
The "opportune time" scenario is what I meant.
I agree partially with the first part. But that's the stating the obvious, you can get that from TV. The less obvious part, because you have to be there to see it, is many people do appreciate and benefit from our assistance. It may not be evident on the national level, yet, but as individuals many lives are better for the US's efforts. Over time the investments we make in educating citizens of foreign nations will payoff.
The assistance I'm addressing is, for example, our assistance to the Afghanis in getting the Russians out of their way some time ago.
I fear that the Northern Alliance, should we make any foreign policy move - or any move at all - that offends them are going to be as forgetful in the future of our assistance in getting them set up as the current crop of people we are now battling against had become after we helped them.
Yes, border security and immigration policy need systemic overhauls. I am with you there. I can't refute that items in the Patriot Act could at some point be used in a negative way. It is possible because that it true of almost any law. I do believe however that we have enough checks and balances in the system that abuses will be minimal, if they occur at all. I also believe that should things go so far that there is a trial, it would be adjudicated in favor of innocents. Repeated abuses would lead to a vociferous effort from all sides of the political spectrum for repeal of the law.
First of all...a correction, I made an error. There was a report submitted by the Hart-Rudman Commission in January 2001 that was the basis of the Office of Homeland Defense. (Might just be me, but I have a hard time separating the "Patriot" Act from the creation of the Office of Homeland Security.)
Also, here is a link I found re: JoeEveryman's mention of James Steinberg's preliminary idea for a form of "Patriot" Act. (I'll search for some more info, if this isn't enough...so much to sift through...I suggest you order out for pizza, this all takes a while to read.)
Thanks for the clarification and the link. I will check it out. A pizza sounds good. :-)
The "opportune time" scenario is what I meant.
Gotcha, makes sense. I think the difference in our opinions is that I wouldn't necessarily attribute bad motives to having a document prepared. I expect our leaders to plan for contingencies and to be ready to implement them 'real-time' if and when they are needed.
The assistance I'm addressing is, for example, our assistance to the Afghanis in getting the Russians out of their way some time ago.
I fear that the Northern Alliance, should we make any foreign policy move - or any move at all - that offends them are going to be as forgetful in the future of our assistance in getting them set up as the current crop of people we are now battling against had become after we helped them.
Thanks for clarifying that, I'm clear on what you meant now. I can understand differences of opinions on the example cited. Fair concern about the NA. This one is going to be dicey for a while and require a comprehensive strategy on our part to assure what you described doesn't happen.
LBT