Quote:
Originally posted by MuadDib
Sorry, I have to disagree. Not only is the Patriot Act (1 & 2) a ticket to a police state, but they are inherently flawed as well. These "precautions" are entirely unneeded and border o unconstitutional. The ability to deport legalized citizens without trial is unacceptable as is the current way we treat our "prisoners of war" at Guatanamo Bay. Roving wiretaps are abusive of our constitutionally interpreted right to privacy. I won't go on a laundrylist, but this isn't simply a matter of "I'm not a bad guy so it won't effect me" and it is simply a matter that the government should not have certain rights over me. There are certain principles our government stand on and the horribly mislabeled Patriot Acts set a disturbing precident for our ability to set those principles aside in the name of fear.
|
Which precautions are we talking about? The ACLU only has problems with 213, 215, and 216, and those are easily defended. Certainly the ACLU, no friend of Bush and Ashcroft, has pored over the Patriot Act more than any of us. You've left me with nothing to go on except broad assertions.
Also, in what way do you think we mistreat POWs at Guantanamo Bay? When I think of Gitmo, the only thing I can think of is, only in the United States can someone run a POW prison camp where even the prisoners gain weight. How fat are we as a nation when the US has to give each prisoner released from Gitmo a new pair of jeans, because on average each prisoner gains 15 pounds.
Last, which citizens are you referring to in that have been unlawfully deported? Padilla? Hamdi? The way they have been treated is abominable, yes. In fact, Bush's November 2001 presidential order directly forbids what is happening to them; why they were treated like that is, well, scandalous. But, not related to the Patriot Act.
-- Alvin
EDIT: PS: MuadDib, apologies if I sound challenging or offensive. I just want to hear an alternate point of view and you seem like you have a pretty well defined position opposite of me.