Patriot Act

Excerpt from your article:

The government is using its expanded authority under the far-reaching law to investigate suspected drug traffickers, white-collar criminals, blackmailers, child pornographers, money launderers, spies and even corrupt foreign leaders, federal officials said.

Is there some reason why we shouldn't want to take the above criminals off the street------isn't this what we pay our law enforcement people to do?

I think its less a matter of wanting them off the streets, than the methods by which it occured.

The key paragraph to understanding the reason for my, and other's anxiety.

what bill of rights?

I have nothing against going after criminals, but I don't think that using a terrorism law to accomplish those ends is an honest approach!

Such is illegal elsewhere ... like in the UK, where it was done as well:
Student challenges use of terror act

Phoenix wrote:

I have nothing against going after criminals, but I don't think that using a terrorism law to accomplish those ends is an honest approach!

But I ask you to think of the great deterrent effect of taking a lot of criminals off the street because they are being discovered as a result of the Patriot Act. I think many people are missing a valid point here-----if you are obeying the law you have nothing to fear from the Patriot Act. If you are a terrorist OR a crook then you deserve to be caught. Where is the logic in giving crooks some sort a advantage?

In the law.

perception- If a person has committed a crime, he needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.........based on the crime that he has committed.

The terrorism law has some features that enable the government to take some legal shortcuts. It was meant to prevent terrorists from compromising national security.

I think that the government is treading very dangerous ground, in terms of a citizen's personal freedoms, if they use this law to prosecute run of the mill criminals.

Walter

Then your logic is that just because the crooks are too smart or conversely because the people are not smart enough to develop specific laws to allow law enforcement to catch the crooks and procecute them we should ignore the opportunity afforded by the Patriot act. In other words until we are smart enough to develop and inact new laws we should allow the crooks to procede unhindered????????

Phoenix wrote

I think that the government is treading very dangerous ground, in terms of a citizen's personal freedoms, if they use this law to prosecute run of the mill criminals.

Phoenix----are they using this law to watch and catch the criminals or in prosecuting them?

If it helps get all the crooks off Wall Street and out of Congress, why not? :::shrug:::



:::plants tongue firmly in cheek:::

Just don't hold your breath waiting for it to be applied equally to all "crooks."

Butrflynet- Many wise words are said in jest.

Perception- I am old enough to remember the Joe McCarthy witchhunts. Nuff said!

Gee, you don't mean the government would use this legislation selectively, now do you?

Another excerpt from the very poorly reseached article:

But a new Justice Department report, given to members of Congress this month, also cites more than a dozen cases that are not directly related to terrorism in which federal authorities have used their expanded power to investigate individuals, initiate wiretaps and other surveillance, or seize millions in tainted assets.

Wow ---- more than a dozen ---DOZEN----that's the same as 12 right? Twelve cases in the last several months where they put people or organizations under serveilance and seized millions in "tainted" assets. Are law abiding citizens worried about this? NO! Should they be ---- NO, NO and NO.

Phoenix:

I asked whether you meant they were using the Patriot Act to place individuals or organizations under surveilance OR to prosecute them. I think that would represent a meaningful legal distinction.

And why is this, Perception? Is it because the government never oversteps its bounds? I seem to recall a comment made by Ed Meese, that went somehting like this: "Everyone who gets arrested is probably guilty of something, even if it isn't what they were arrested for." Would you prefer a system based on assumption of guilt?
From what little I know of legal history, the US's insistance on the presumed innocence of the accused was an innovation. Should we abandon those things that make us unique in order to fight the nebulous threat of "terror?"

It is so easy to say, "If you haven't done anything wrong, why should you worry?" You should worry if you happen to be unjustly accused and lose months, if not years, of your life trying to prove your innocence.

Our present laws are maddeningly ineffective in prosecuting the worst criminals (or the richest), but that doesn't mean that we should give up our greatest right, that of protection against illegal search and seizure.

Just as so-called 'temporary' taxes have a way of becoming permanent, so do most legal 'adjustments', once they are in the hands of the police (or the Pentagon)

The citizens of the U.S. need to be reminded not to give up their bill of rights. I believe the ACLU has a bumper sticker with just those words. I hate to paste labels stating my beliefs on the back of my car, but this is too dangerous to not advertise the danger to the general public.

As this subject always seems to generate more emotion than valid argument ----- I think I will take a break and cool off.