Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
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?
|
The term "slippery slope" appears in my old logic text book under the heading "Informal Logical Fallacies". The government has, as you said, given an inch. You now fear they will take a mile. That rationale has been used in a variety of contexts, with poor results. (Ask about its usage in Frederick Douglas' autobiography if you want a good example)
You seem to be implying that everyone prosecuted under the Act is a terrorist because the name and primary purpose of the Act relate to terrorism. Hence, the fear that federal agents enforcing legitimate patent laws might turn into the secret police torturing people who get multiple parking tickets.
Forgive me if I see this argument as a slippery slope. Neither of us wants to live in
1984. However, giving law enforcement more tools with which to pursue people breaking laws that are already on the books just sounds like good policing policy to me.
I simply don't buy the "This statute has TERRORIST in the title and therefore must only be used for terrorist-related prosecutions" argument. Nor do I buy the "They told us this wouldn't happen" argument. Neither of these tactics explain why it is dangerous or undersirable to use the Act in this way.