Monday, January 30, 2006

Pass It, Get Over It, and Get Back to Work


On the Hill, the House and Senate are having a tough time reconciling the future of the Patriot Act.
Having been in limbo since December, key elements of America's domestic protections in the campaign against our enemies are in danger of expiring if agreement can't be reached in the conference committee.
Items in question are the heightened powers that allow federal agents to tap phones, obtain library records, view bank accounts and search homes of terrorist suspects.
Any law that puts more power into the hands of the government for any reason must be closely scrutinized and revisited on a regular basis.
However, in this instance, it appears that partisanship is a greater danger than individual rights—unless someone on the Left can point us to a single instance of a citizen's rights being violated AS A DIRECT RESULT OF the Patriot Act since it became law more than four years ago.



I wonder what this person's family thinks is more important: protecting "civil liberties" or actually capturing the persons responsible for their loved one's death. . . . . . .

4 Comments:

Blogger s9 said...

You have it completely backward. Again.

If you're going to subordinate the Bill of Rights to the need to build out the national security apparatus, then it's incumbent upon you, at least, to offer a defense of the USA PATRIOT Act showing how the powers it grants the Federal government have ever been used directly to neutralize a threat of terrorist violence.

What, you can't do that? I'm so unsurprised...

5:40 PM  
Blogger therobb said...

Thanks for stopping by, s9.

From the original post:

"Any law that puts more power into the hands of the government for any reason must be CLOSELY SCRUTINIZED and REVISITIED on a regular basis."

Translation: Keep the Patriot Act working with its sunset provisions intact.

For me to do as you ask, to show "how the powers it grants the Federal government have ever been used directly to neutralize a threat of terrorist violence" would require a security clearance WAY beyond my current pay grade.

Therefore, if the Patrot Act is such a threat, then it's incumbent upon you, at least, to point out a single instance of a citizen's rights being violated AS A DIRECT RESULT OF the Patriot Act.

Again, thanks for stopping by, and I really do hope all is well with you and the Mojowire crew.

4:18 AM  
Blogger s9 said...

TheRobb writes: For me to do as you ask, to show "how the powers it grants the Federal government have ever been used directly to neutralize a threat of terrorist violence" would require a security clearance WAY beyond my current pay grade.

I didn't think you could do it. Why should it be such a big secret, Robb? What, you think Al Qaeda doesn't know about the USA PATRIOT Act?

TheRobb writes: Again, thanks for stopping by, and I really do hope all is well with you and the Mojowire crew.

Interesting. So, you've changed your mind then? You don't think we're traitors anymore? Or have you just come over to the other side, now?

10:09 PM  
Blogger therobb said...

On the December 9, 2005 posting at mojowire, one of your teammates stated their opposition to the Patriot Act "which represents an extreme danger to the life, property and liberty of all persons living in the United States."

That's a heck of an accusation.

Therefore, if someone is gonna bring an accusation of that magnitude, the burden of proof rests on the person making the accusaton.

If the Patriot Act is such a dire threat, then please point out a single instance of a citizen's rights being violated AS A DIRECT RESULT OF the Patriot Act since it became law more than four years ago.

On the subject of calling you "traitors", you apparently missed the entire point of the original post in December, which was this:

Our elected leaders need to show a united front in public, and save the disagreements for the boardroom...away from the cameras.

6:11 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home