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?

And GW could have declared martial law on 9/11. He's trying to go the
least disruptive route for the most people. Most people aren't
terrorists.

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.

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

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