Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (834)	4/30/2003 11:37:22 AM
From: TigerPaw	Respond to of 20773

I find that alarming. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, federal and local authorities have targeted the financial networks of suspected terrorist groups. Civil libertarians say the effort has sometimes led to abuses by police who single out people of Middle Eastern descent. Officials said this investigation is a licensing issue, not one of supporting terrorism. "There was no indication this guy was a danger. It does seem excessive. It is like the Big Brother of 1984," said Randall Kallinen of the Houston chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. chron.com There are better and more civilized ways to let a man know you think he needs a license to operate his business than rousting him out of his house at gunpoint in the early morning hours," Hirtz said.

To: zonder who wrote (834)	4/30/2003 5:20:26 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

I'm not aware of the right to intern citizens for indefinite lengths of time without access to lawyers. Is that actually part of the Patriot Act? There has to be a balance between liberty and security. Always has, always will be. Finding that balance has always been tricky, always will be. Societies are made up of a range of people who place different levels of importance on liberty and safety. It's entirely possible that the Patriot Act may have tipped the balance too far. OTOH, we can't go back to the level of security vs. freedom that existed in, say, 1776; modern weapons, modern lack of respect for civilians (in fact, the modern policy of making citizens the primary brunt of terrorism) are changes that simply have to be taken into account. BTW, I wasn't referring to you when I made the comment you included. You hadn't made that claim. Somebody else here had. Sorry for the confusion.