But you must admit that the Patriot Act does make the U.S. safer. Although it comes by the expense of people that might be innocent, most of those detainees do not fit that description.
++ [ originally posted by Petrovich ] ++
But you must admit that the Patriot Act does make the U.S. safer. Although it comes by the expense of people that might be innocent, most of those detainees do not fit that description.
You can't control what people think. When the republican convention in NY was going on, they had a really tight security. What happend? A couple of young democrats that had managed to get in started to shout out "Kerry, Kerry".
The problem is that the public doesn't know what a terrorist look like. So how are they gonna call in and report something strange going on.
How many have seen "The Siege" or "Enemy Of The State"? Yeah, I know it's hollywood movies but it reminds me what is going on now with the patriot act.
Democrats, in general, are far more likely to make cuts to anything security or military wise than republicans.
Senator Kerry would be bucking a trend here if he actually increases military strength or security measures.
Whoever is elected president, take care of our own country first. USA, first and foremost, needs to be on the mindof whomever is President. Sorry if it seems selfish, but as an American, this country needs some serious fixing, and its not something that just happened during Bush's watch, and it won't be something that is fixed in the next 4 years, either. However, I need to start seeing some positive steps being made during this next term, not so much for myself, but for my future children.
I'm not trying to justify it, all that I'm saying is that the logic behind does make the U.S. safer, altough it is at the expense of some innocent people.
I assume that most of the detainees are not innocent, and have been involved with Al-Qaeda practices. Its rather difficult to say thats true, but hopefully our government isn't screwing up in this aspect of the War on Terror.
So if they're not innocent and there is actual proof to support this theory of yours, why aren't they shipped off to the standard court system? Why are they being detained indefinitely under no official charges?
++ [ originally posted by Martin ] ++
So if they're not innocent and there is actual proof to support this theory of yours, why aren't they shipped off to the standard court system? Why are they being detained indefinitely under no official charges?
++ [ originally posted by Petrovich ] ++
I'm not trying to justify it, all that I'm saying is that the logic behind does make the U.S. safer, altough it is at the expense of some innocent people.
Any domestic "war on terrorism" in the U.S. is a lot like fighting cancer. The key in any cancer treatment is killing off the cancerous cells while leaving the healthy cells as untouched as possible. One one end, too lax a treatment can allow it to metastasize further -- threatening more of the body. Too strong a treatment, and it's like chemotherapy -- sure you poison out most of the bad stuff, but the rest of you is vomiting all the time with your hair all fallen out. The treatment can become worse than the illness.
Beyond improving our accuracy in our intelligence at identifying dangerous terrorists in the country, Americans have to decide at what level do they want to condemn the innocent in order to improve their chances at catching the guilty. The real test is that they have to be willing to accept that those odds of condemning the innocent have to include themselves in that lot.
Any domestic "war on terrorism" in the U.S. is a lot like fighting cancer. The key in any cancer treatment is killing off the cancerous cells while leaving the healthy cells as untouched as possible. One one end, too lax a treatment can allow it to metastasize further -- threatening more of the body. Too strong a treatment, and it's like chemotherapy -- sure you poison out most of the bad stuff, but the rest of you is vomiting all the time with your hair all fallen out. The treatment can become worse than the illness.
Beyond improving our accuracy in our intelligence at identifying dangerous terrorists in the country, Americans have to decide at what level do they want to condemn the innocent in order to improve their chances at catching the guilty. The real test is that they have to be willing to accept that those odds of condemning the innocent have to include themselves in that lot.
I love the simile used there, well done. That is a tough question about which extreme the citizens want the methods to be taken. If they have the chance of condemning themselves in an effort to protect the country, is it that worth it to follow through? The opinions probably differ greatly from Washington DC out 100 miles into Mid-State Pennsylvania for instance. Most citizens in New York for instance probably have no qualms about the Patriot Act.
++ [ originally posted by Martin ] ++
So if they're not innocent and there is actual proof to support this theory of yours, why aren't they shipped off to the standard court system? Why are they being detained indefinitely under no official charges?
This, my friend, is the million dollar question that so many of us asking of our government. So far, the only answer has been, "I don't have to answer to you, I'm the President of the United States, you answer to me.":down:
There's about a million links to a whole bunch of different pages on that site. Now please don't take it personally or shoot me down; I'm not agreeing with the views expressed therein, nor am I trying to alter anyone's views. I just thought it made interesting reading