We just don't get it

[Justice 0]

Um... so you don't mind that the guy is being investigated for some pretty serious political corruption charges?

You're missing the point. The government told us that this Act was to be used against terrorists, would protect us against terrorists, etc. This guy isn't Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, or Islamic Jihad.

But you are missing the point that the power is still limited (Didn't you see it said "Money Laundering" in there?) and it is being used for very good reason. Political bribery and corruption is something that I don't mind seeing the Patroit Act beign used for for; terrorism is undue influence on the government by people through illegal means. Bribery is illegal means and it's influencing the government. That's a decent explanation right there. It still can't be used against normal Americans without a Judge saying it's alright and an extraordinaire crime (Money Laundering isn't something everyone can do, it's a pretty high up crime) being committed. What's the problem?

 

And not only that, but why do all the liberals on this board have such a narrow-minded way of looking at everything? Seriously, if something does more than what it was said to do, for better or for worse, it is evil and must be stopped. What the hell is up with that?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Interesting reply, PP. Here's what it basically comes down to:

 

I don't enjoy seeing our elected officials decide to give up OUR rights so that police can stop crime more. I don't find crime such a problem that I'm willing to give up my personal liberties over it. I didn't appreciate seeing the Patriot Act pass in it's current form (it isn't completely full of bad ideas, the 9/11 commission has found that some parts of it probably would have been useful to us pre-9/11 if we had it, but I don't like the whole enchilada), but the government promised it would be used to protect us from terrorists and basically prevent another 9/11.

 

So far nothing like that has come to pass. While I wouldn't mind seeing portions of the act added on their own (sure, why not let government agencies share information?), we don't need all of Ashcroft's tools of watching over the flock.

[Guest MikeSC]

Interesting reply, PP. Here's what it basically comes down to:

 

I don't enjoy seeing our elected officials decide to give up OUR rights so that police can stop crime more. I don't find crime such a problem that I'm willing to give up my personal liberties over it. I didn't appreciate seeing the Patriot Act pass in it's current form (it isn't completely full of bad ideas, the 9/11 commission has found that some parts of it probably would have been useful to us pre-9/11 if we had it, but I don't like the whole enchilada), but the government promised it would be used to protect us from terrorists and basically prevent another 9/11.

 

So far nothing like that has come to pass. While I wouldn't mind seeing portions of the act added on their own (sure, why not let government agencies share information?), we don't need all of Ashcroft's tools of watching over the flock.

Jobber, there has been a massive misinformation campaign about the act since it was passed. Much of the left's borderline-psychotic caterwauling is over nothing.

-=Mike