CrystalGaurdian wrote:
Quote:
/shrug.
Another Bush heavy handed overreaction.
Funny you should say that because I don't think Bush would be the only one to have that same reaction. Once something bad like that happens of course they are going to try to cut the chance of it happening again down. Plus Bush doesn't make the laws...The same thing happens when someone gets shot...the crack down on gun laws as well...happens quite commonly whether bush is in office or not...
Well, Bush does get the job of enforcing the laws, the executive powers, and can interpret existing laws in different ways. Existing law can be reinterpreted to strengthen it without passing new laws. For example, a drug can become illegal by being added to a list of prohibited drugs without an act of congress. Probably rocket fuel was added to some list, probably by a Bush appointee. Should it have been? That is debatable, but I have no problems with it's restrictions.
I wouldn't get too upset about this. It's things like the Patriot act which are extremely dangerous to our liberty - and that was passed by congress. If you are American, please let your elected representitives know if you disagree with it.
Am I willing to give up the right to store rocket fuel in my house in a residential area? Sure. I just don't want to give up the right to force the police to get a warrent. Currently they can wave the "terrorism" card and forgo getting a warrent. I really think we can all agree on this - Republicans and Democrats - that searches without warrents are really really bad and only should be used in extreme circustances.
Sure, if they get an anonymous call from my cell phone that a bomb is going off in 48 minuets at the local school and they want to come search my house with no warrent be my guest. Arrest me while you're at it. I have no problem with that: its an emergency. In 48.0 minuets when the emergency is over, realize the mistake (or not) and it's no harm, no foul.
However, the Patriot act gives them the right to request my library records with no warrent. If it's an emergency, what books I happen to have checked out from the library is not at issue: just arrest me now and sort out the facts later.
Clearly things like library books are just being used as fishing expeditions: give me the list of all people who checked out a copy of the Koran, etc. In the past, intelligence agencies went to secret intelligence courts to get warrents for this kind of thing (including wire taps). There are courts which had *never* turned down such requests until after 9/11. The Bush administration was that aggressive. And when they were denied by the court, instead of realizing there are limits to power and you do have to have some kind of probable cause to get a warrent they pushed for the Patriot act so they could end run around the courts.
Terrorism is a method. Existant from Biblical times, we will never eliminate it's use. War on Quaeda, I support completely. A war on terror is a blank check to invade personal liberties, forever.
Why are we not having a national debate about this? Clearly we can increase the odds of catching terrorists with these lawless tactics, but the constitution says we deserve due process and if we're going to change that we should at least talk about it first, seriously.