wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Anyone in a position of authority, power, or decision making needs
safeguards. History has shown this to be true many times.

People who behave ethically at all times aren't bothered by safeguards.

So why are Democrats so bothered by the Patriot Amendment?

If by the "Patriot Amendment" you mean this:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Presiden..._amendment_act

the answer is that it looks like an attempt by the Current Occupant to
remove safeguards.

And it's not just Democrats:

Quoting Wikinews:

Sen. Lindsey Graham voiced concern over the way national security is
being used as a catch all phrase in this and a number of other signing
statements, saying "If you take this to its logical conclusion, because
during war the commander in chief has an obligation to protect us, any
statute on the books could be summarily waived,"

Sen. Graham is a Republican from South Carolina.

Yes, Sen Graham is a Republican from South Carolina. Are you from
South Carolina? Does Sen Graham represent you?

I'm not from SC. But that's not the point.

The question you asked was why *Democrats* are/were so bothered by the
Patriot Amendment. Which implies that Republicans aren't bothered by
it, and that it's a partisan thing, with the usual spin of "Party A is
good, Party B is bad". The fact that there are Republicans who are
concerned demonstrates that ity's not so simple.

Guess where Sen. Arlen Specter is from....

And GW could have declared martial law on 9/11.

Could he? For the whole country or just parts of it?

Maybe in theory. In practice, I don't know of any time in the history
of the Republic where nationwide or even widespread martial law was
imposed. The use of such power has always been very limited.

To declare martial law for the whole country in the wake of 9/11 would
have been an overreaction.

He's trying to go the
least disruptive route for the most people.

That's one way to look at it. Here's another:

If someone in power tries to make radical changes all at once, there is
usually strong opposition. But if the changes are made in stages, a
little at a time, they can often be packaged in such a way as to result
in an overall change that is much more radical. A little here, a little
there, and pretty soon an awful lot is gone.

Most people aren't terrorists.

Very true.

Since the birth of this nation, the US Post Office has been looking at
the addressee and the return address on every piece of first class mail
that they've handled. The government even goes so far as to walk right
up to the addressee, even if private property, and give them their
message.

And if something suspicious shows up in the US Mail, the Postmaster is
allowed to open it. The sender and the receiver are both subject to
investigation.

The US Post Office is also a government-run organization - it's not
private industry. Reading the addresses is a practical necessity, in
order to know where to send the mail.

Today, under the "Patriot Act," the US Government gets to see the
originating phone number, the destination phone number, and if there
are suspicious trigger words, the contents of the message may be seen.

I thought the discussion was about the "Patriot Amendment".

I think the two systems of communications should share similar risks of
eavesdropping. Why shouldn't it be so?

"Eavesdropping"? I would call it "monitoring". And I agree that if a
communication of *any* kind - written, "wired", radio, etc. - is
suspicious, the govt. should be able to monitor it.

At the same time, there need to be safeguards against misuse of the
monitoring. Checks and balances.

You may not remember the Nixon Administration, but I sure do. There
were things done which were clear misuse of power, in order to insure
that RMN got elected and re-elected. There were serious attempts to
hide it under the umbrella of "national security".

The truly odd thing was that RMN did not need any of those 'dirty
tricks' to get elected or re-elected.

If you are choosing to afford terrorists equal protection, I think
you're nuts.

The problem isn't terrorists getting equal protection. If they're
really terrorists, they should be dealt with as needed.

The problem is that while most people aren't terrorists, we all get
looked at as if we are. And the safeguards start disappearing, one by
one, always for "national security". Then there's no equal protection
for anyone.

Is that what the USA is about?