[roughrider]

If you had paid attention to the federal authorities of late, they have frequently told us that further terrorist attacks of tremendous proportions are "inevitable," and that "there is nothing we can do to prevent them." You know they have frequently said this, so it is difficult to feel safer as a result of this law. Colleen Rowley has been writing about this to her superiors at the FBI again, as well, stating that nothing has really changed. So, that question has been answered.

As to the second, I suggest you study St. Thomas Aquinas on "Potency and Actuality." In its application to citizens of the United States, the "Patriot" Act is a potency not yet actualized. It is the potency that is objectionable. The defintion of "terrorist" is understood by Americans to mean irregular foreign enemies who bomb, hijack, assassinate, take hostages, etc. To the Patriot Act, "terrorist" has a whole new convulted meaning so that the term can be applied to U.S. Citizens who may, or may not, be guilty of this or that State law, or who may, or may not, be engaged in some activity that "APPEARS" to be "dangerous to human life." "Appears" is a term that is alien to Anglo-American legal philosophy. Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is the traditional measurement.

We had a 1978 Anti-Terrorism law that provided enough legal recourse to the FBI's Minneapolis Field Office to almost break 9/11 before it happened. Passing paper laws does nothing to solve problems. Pro-active, Constitutional intelligence gathering and investigative techniques CAN accomplish much. Let's go back to the laws we had, which were sufficient, and do something about bureaucrats who, in the words of Rowley, "sabotage" the efforts of those trying to defend us.

[sinkspur]

If you had paid attention to the federal authorities of late, they have frequently told us that further terrorist attacks of tremendous proportions are "inevitable," and that "there is nothing we can do to prevent them." You know they have frequently said this, so it is difficult to feel safer as a result of this law.

The law doesn't make me feel safer, but knowing that scumbag terrorists can be thrown in a dark cell where they can't rant and rave to their associates is very comforting.

Colleen Rowley has been writing about this to her superiors at the FBI again, as well, stating that nothing has really changed. So, that question has been answered.

Sorry, but "Person of the Year" Colleen Rowley is a grandstander who thinks she gets 30 minutes of fame. Her letter got all of the attention it deserved, which was not very much.

The "potency" of PAI has been to get lots of rats off the street, dangerous men who had designs on this country. That's a very good thing.

I don't buy the "slippery slope" argument, but it's all you've got, so I'm not surprised you'd use it.