|
|
|
|
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
On 19 Dec 2003 23:38:37 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:
Perhaps I'm just not the brightest light in the chandelier, but I don't see
the reason for the implications that we have lost all the rights granted us
by
the Bill of Rights.
But you're more than bright enough to understand that while most of us have not
"lost" any rights under the Patriot Act, there is now a mechanism in place to
extinguish an individual's rights by Executive order.
Right now, you guys think, "No big deal. The right wing has seized control of
the country. My interests are going to be advanced by whatever decisions the
President and his cabinet make."
Imagine how concerned you would be, and will be, when a moderate or liberal
politician ascends to the office of POTUS again.
This article, provided by Mark Browne, provides an overview of the Patriot Act
and some of its ramifications. I didn't dig it up, Mark did. Therefore, I
shouldn't face an accusation of finding a 'rightie' source of info. The article
provides objective, not panic-stricken, information. Does the act tighten up
some loose ends? Yes. Does it give anyone the right to imprison me for no
reason? No.
The administration's rational for Padilla, to the best I can understand, was
that the terrorist acts of 9/11 were conducted on American soil, Congress
authorized the war on terror (but not with the Patriot Act), the US is a 'combat
zone', and therefore a citizen can be detained as a combatant.
Do I agree with the idea of the USA being a combat zone? I don't know for sure,
but I lean against it. I don't like the idea that the President, by virtue of
the USA being a combat zone, could perhaps declare martial law and do anything
he desires. (I don't know that combat zone and martial law go together so
easily, but you get my drift.)
John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
|