Quote:
|
Originally Posted by politicophile
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)
|
yet conservatives have used 'slippery slope' in their arguments where it concerns things like gay marriage leading to marrying your dog, or allowing terri schiavo to die will be allowing euthanasia for all mental invalids. The government did not 'give an inch', we gave an inch and now they are taking a mile.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by politicophile
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.
|
I'm not implying that, the government is doing that. There was already a law about running a meth lab, but now some DA wants to prosecute a meth lab maker as manufacturing chemical weapons of mass destruction. I'm all for drug crime prosecution but this is killing the patient to cure the symptoms.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by politicophile
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.
|
Law enforcement had ALL the tools they needed to fight domestic crime, the ACT was for law enforcement to fight terrorism, not charge domestic crimes as acts of terrorism.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by politicophile
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.
|
in other words, "its my government that does no wrong and why do you hate america!!!!"
Edited. One day Ban issued.