Patriot Act

Sofia,

You said that MLK could not be considered a terrorist.

But wasn't he? I'm really asking, not rhetorical.

Answering Craven's MLK question.

No. Not to my way of thinking.
He was the victim of terrorism, IMO.

Yeah, but wasn't he considered a threat to the US and monitored with other civil rights leaders?

My limited understanding of the case suggests he wasn't ever actually considered a terrorist but what I'm driving at is this:

The conservatives here are right to call the liberal's anti Patriot Act arguments "slippery slope" arguments. After all they are.

But what separates a fallacious slippery slope from one that isn't is illustrating probability.

I believe it was Phoenix who brought up Mccarthyism and blatham who brought up MLK and what I took their arguments to mean is that there is sufficient history stateside to suggest that the potential for governmental abuse of power is a realistic threat in the uS.

Of course, if they call "slippery slope" and show history it does not mean that the slide will actually take place but what they have done is attempt to make the argument not rest on a fallacious premise.

Personally I am not too worried about the Patriot act. Almost any governmental power can be abused but the people who raise alarm (sometimes frivolously) serve as a safety net, IMO.

I guess what I'm saying is that I think the anti Patriot crowd (see why I hate the name?) have a valid concern. And their opposition to the Patriot Act serves as the safety net against it's abuse.

In other words, I don't care about the Patriot Act because of these here watchdogs. I trust that if we go down the wrong path the paranoid American mindset will step up and right it.

So while people here disagree on whether the Patriot Act WILL be abused do you all agree that it CAN be abused and that history teaches us to be wary of the potential?

I advocate making sure it's not abused and making sure it's temporary. I do not think it will help at all in the prevention of terrorism and hopefully it won;t be abused for other purposes either.

Edit: I realized I had more concluding paragraphs than ones that weren't.

The libs aren't the only watchdogs.
There is a provision in the Act, stating that if any part is found to be against the interests of basic freedoms of Americans (paraphrased), that the section or item will be deleted.

I am for time limits on it, as well. And, I would never sit still while my freedoms erode. But, to scrap the whole thing, or argue about points that are assisting in the apprehension of terrorists for no good reason, other than trying to fashion the thing into a battering ram against John Ashcroft, Bush or the GOP is, in my view, low and against what's in this country's best interests for the sake of partisanship.

MLK never threatened the US, or any other group. He spoke passionately about non-violence. No one could have thrown the Patriot Act around him. But, I bet Ashcroft knows what Farrakan had for breakfast...

As you stated abuse of power has gone on long before the PA. As I alluded to, MLK was the victim of state-sponsered terrorism.

I don't mind people saying they don't like the PA. But, I wish they'd lay it on the line when someone asks them what damage has been done. Maybe they should just say, "Well, none. I'm just worried about what might happen."

Craven--I think it has already aided in the apprehension of terrorists, and enabled us to keep up with, and deport some, who got in on visas, and didn't meet their visa obligations. I may investigate, if doubted.

I never said it didn't help in the apprehension of terrorists. I said I don't think it will make a difference in the prevention of terrorism.

"Terrorists" often do not strike.

There have been thousands of "terrorists" in America. We have not suffered thousands of 9/11s.

And it's not just because of apprehension. Terrorism is even more "hit and miss" than is law enforcement.

I will probably make A difference, but I doubt it will make THE difference.

Acquiunk--
Could you cite the Patriot Act section that stifles dissent, or would put down unrest?

Does anyone here believe if Clinton had managed to get these provisions inacted right after the first attack on the Trade Center, it would have prevented 9/11? Would Janet Reno be in the same position as Ashcroft is now?

I think if the PA had been enacted by Clinton, 911 would have been prevented. Following the student visas and getting into Moussaoui's computer would've thwarted 911, IMO.

Reno may have taken hits, but wouldn't have suffered the furor Ashcroft has--due to her party and lack of fundy religion.
----------
<will try to be quiet for a while, unless addressed . Interested in others' opinions>
----------
LW-- I thought that was a very good question.

Most of the provisions of the Patriot Act were put in place during Clinton's administration (see the link in my post on page 3 of this thread.) and they didn't prevent 9/11. At the time very few even blinked.

9/11 could have been prevented under conventional measures. That it wasn't suggests, to me, that it's simply one of the "misses" in the "hit and miss" way law is enforced and that a different law wouldn't have helped.

"Most of" means there were some crucial provisions missing that are now in place with the PA.

There were some changes made - no one could ever dispute that. How "crucial" they were may be up for grabs though. I'd have to pull up all 3 of them and compare them line by line to see what the exact differences are.

One I know of off hand was a reduction in the "need" Federal Investigators were required to demonstrate to the courts to conduct a "sneak and peek" search. No one blinks when the Terrorism Prevention Act of 1994 created the sneak & peak provision but now people are clamoring because the threashold for getting the warrant is lower (and some of those people seem to think the PA created these searches to begin with which is just flat out wrong..)

I can see MLK as a terrorist - when I see the acts of violence he participated in, or possibly the acts of violence he directly encouraged. Till then, I continue to believe that the word terrorist is becoming seriously diluted.

Really, it's only if they have jurisdiction. Federal law is actually rather limited. Tort law, for example, is virtually never handled federally unless there is diversity jurisdiction (a car accident occurs in Connecticut and the parties are residents of Rhode Island, plus the amount in controversy is > $25,000 [that figure may have been upped; it's been a while since I checked such things]). But even then it's just being handled in federal court, which then applies state law subject to choice of laws (called Conflicts).

The federal government has plenty of areas wherein they have sole jurisdiction, such as suits against the federal government and in matters of suing federal agencies (like OSHA), but under the Tenth Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

Essentially, this is saying that most legal matters are handled by the states, which have default power over such matters.

I don't know about diluted but distorted is fine with me. Isn't it the goal of politicians (and lawyers) to cleverly distort definitions (and often ideas)?

If the "sneak and peak" searches were working as is, what happened? Obvious to me they weren't very intrusive and perhaps there just wasn't the manpower to process the information, or ineptness in processing the information. Clinton wanted to get the more stringent provisions inacted and what was passed was watered down.

Some cartoons

Craven - MLK was most certainly monitored. His telephone was tapped - some believe that evidence was planted to discredit him (eg evidence of philandering) - he was monitored constantly - both his public and private life..

Patriot Act
I guess it may never be proved, but all evidence seems to indicate that Martin Luther King was targeted -- probably by J. Edgar Hoover. In addition to being a homosexual Hoover was quite a racist.

Which goes to prove power is abused without the help of the Patriot Act.

LOL!

The point of the MLK thing wa, I think, to prove how easily a person can be targetted who is NOT a terrorist.

Were not America's laws changed, prior to the Patriot Act (WHAT a name!), to give more protection to a person exercising peaceful dissent?