Quote:
|
Originally Posted by politicophile
dksuddeth, could you explain why you think that the USA PATRIOT Act should not be used to punish criminals that are engaged in non-terrorist crimes? Are their other reasons beyond your claim that "we had our arguments countered by people that said the exact same thing, that it would only be used for terrorism"? Setting aside what "people" might have said about the Act, what harm is there in arresting [murderers/scam artists/counterfeiters/whatever] by using law enforcement provisions designed to fight terrorists?
|
Uniting and
Strengthening
America by
Providing
Appropriate
Tools
Required to
Intercept and
Obstruct
Terrorism
Any questions?
It's called 'slippery slope', or call it giving an inch, taking a mile.
I know that alot of peole will look at this and say 'why not prosecute criminals with whatever harsh tools we have available?'
The thing is, there was great debate about this infringing on civil liberties and making terrorists out of 'common' criminals. We were told that this would NOT be used in that way, but surprise, surprise, thats exactly what it is being used for. So, whats next on the agenda? shall excessive parking tickets be an act of terrorism since it deprives a government of revenue?
We have laws on the books already that deal with crimes of this nature (counterfeiting, bad check writing, speeding, etc.) and a big part of the problem in this country today is you need a friggin law doctorate to know whether or not you can shake your dick when your done taking a leak.
One could look at the claim that this would not be used for everyday crimes, only terrorism, and now we've been effectively lied to.