Replies

The fact that terrorists did not attack until 2002 cannot be used to argue that the patriot act was not needed, but I agree that my arguements were not true justification for the law.

I found it reprehensible that various govt agencies did not share data on watch lists for entry into this country. I also believe a tightening of security requires tighter laws than are required in peacetime.

I find your arguement that the war will never be over to be a complete capitulation. (The Alabamians I know do not think that way.)

As to a government becoming more restrictive and taking away our freedom, they started that with seat belts and helmet laws, and we should have held the line there, but I can afford to wait until the thousand or so terrorists here in this country are in Guantanamo before I call off the dogs.

We are probably in agreement about fighting terrorism, but differ in the degree to which we should fight it. A quote you might agree with is, If we pass these laws restricting us, then the terrorists have won."

The truth is that in times of struggle, personal freedoms have always suffered, and been returned to the status quo afterward. It is not new, and the government has a right not to be destroyed by the very freedoms and attitudes we love in this country.

Finally, the patriot act does still allow for a review of the probable cause by the government before they "plunder personal records" but if they are searching the bank records of arab charities withoug notification of those charities, I can live with it. Sorry, your approach will result in more terror and tie the hands of the very people you will blame first when it happens.

We are probably in agreement about fighting terrorism, but differ in the degree to which we should fight it.
I don't think we differ in the degree with which we should fight it, only in the methods used in fighting it.
Some of the provisions make sense I'll agree. Information sharing between the various law enforcement agencies being one example.
My opposition to the act has more to do with the unrestricted gathering of information, and the clearly unconstitutional "sneak & peek" search warrants.(see the 4th amendment).
I have no problem with the gathering of information if it is Constitutionally done.

Sorry, your approach will result in more terror...
Again we differ in view. In my view your approach will result in a totalitarian, ever repressive, unconstitutional government. In my view, and the founders, and most of recorded history, it is unwise to allow unrestricted governmental power. I believe that it is unlikely we will ever recover from this act.
I desperately hope I am wrong.

and tie the hands of the very people you will blame first when it happens.
This is an unfair assumption. I didn't blame these people for the first attack.

Hopefully we have a respectful difference of opinion. This example is the extreme but will make my point I think.
We could virtually eliminate crime if we required that everyone stayed home unless going to and from work and authorized police to shoot and kill on the spot anyone who violated this rule. I (and I'm sure you) am not willing to give up what is necessary to accomplish this.
Our difference in view stems from what we are willing to trade to try an accomplish the goal.

I find your arguement that the war will never be over to be a complete capitulation.
I forgot a responst I wanted to make to this comment.
The reason that this was will never be over is because of the reason we are in this war (which we may differ in view on). I believe that this IS a religious war that they started. Since they teach to convert or kill, the Muslem religion is incompatable with any other. From our dealings with the Arabs from the Barbary Coast until now, and from history of Europe, I believe that the only thing Arabs(in general) respect is raw brute force. We have no intention of eliminating them nor of letting them eliminate us, therefore they will always be a threat.
It is not capitulation, it's just life.