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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (7183)	12/17/2005 12:03:49 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 541326

Karen, As on bill's thread, you fight the good fight. How does your hubby put up with you? Time for the weekend and some fun now. You added greatly to the debate here. Your rational approach shuts us all up a bit. (including moi). mike

To: Lane3 who wrote (7183)	12/17/2005 12:05:41 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541326

We know that there are lots of people, including on this thread, who view almost any action or statement against the Bush administration as undermining the war effort. Undermining a country during a time of war is often considered treason. I would suppose that a disproportionate amount of people in local and federal law enforcement are inclined to want to support the government they work for. It's the nature of the job. They sign up because they either enjoy and/or deeply believe in tracking down "bad guys". So when anyone who dissents from the government line is a "bad guy" then brownshirts at the door are a perfectly reasonable solution for those whose primary goal is the defense of homeland. There is a very real threat that unwarranted searches could become a major threat to our democratic freedom and liberties. That's why the founding fathers required judicial warrants in the first place. If some choose to trust elected officials to exercise that oversight from with the executive, they should get a constitutional amendment stating that directly, instead of weaseling around specific provisions that happen to impede them in their pursuits. So yes, I find the fear reasonable and rational.

To: Lane3 who wrote (7183)	12/17/2005 12:12:20 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541326

I have always agreed with you and Ele about not letting the fear affect our lives. That's one reason I think it's important to question whether the Patriot Act is necessary or whether it was an overreaction to the trauma of 9-11, a national trauma that can't really be measured and that I believe was deeper than many realized. Much of the intelligence failures seem to me to have been due to a lack of communication and followthrough and common sense (and a certain "can;t happen here"naivité) could these have been fixed without the PA? Is there a possibility that this admin seized the opportunity for more power and where does that lead? When I speak of brownshirts, it's obviously tongue-in-cheek, but because I personally have no fear of opening my mailbox and breathing in a mouthful anthrax or exploding, doesn't mean that these things aren't potentials to be considered and weighed, just as the potential of unauthorized wiretaps or secret arrests should be. Meeth claims the response to the PA is a response to a myth of possible abuse, not a reality. I would want to be very sure that there is no chance of that myth becoming real.