Re: "smoked salmon socialists"

Rubystars wrote:
> > What specific part of it do you oppose?
> >
> > Many of the tools the Act provides to law enforcement to fight
> > terrorism have been used for decades to fight organized crime
> > and drug dealers, and have been reviewed and approved by the
> > courts. As Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) explained during the floor
> > debate about the Act, "the FBI could get a wiretap to
> > investigate the mafia, but they could not get one to investigate
> > terrorists. To put it bluntly, that was crazy! What’s good for
> > the mob should be good for terrorists." (Cong. Rec., 10/25/01)
> > http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/
> >
> > Much of what's actually changed are issues related to "keeping up with
> > technology," streamlining warrant processes, and improving inter-agency
> > cooperation. You don't want agencies to cooperate? Even one of the
> > Democrat Presidential candidates thinks they should:
> > As Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) said about the Patriot Act, "we
> > simply cannot prevail in the battle against terrorism if the
> > right hand of our government has no idea what the left hand is
> > doing." (Press release, 10/26/01)
> > [same reference]
> >
> > I hear people complain about the Patriot Act all the time, but they
> > won't (or can't) tell me specifically why it bothers them. When I
> > explain its key provisions, they actually agree those are good measures.
> > Go figure.
>
> Most of it seems to be good and seems to be against terrorists, but I have
> to wonder if the new leeway given to the government could be abused.

*Any* power exercised by government has the potential for abuse. The law 
has Congressional oversight provisions built into it. The judiciary, 
too, will retain its check and balance. I know many people don't like 
the FISA court, but this is something with which we've lived for 25 
years now.

> For example:
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> SEC. 105. EXPANSION OF NATIONAL ELECTRONIC CRIME TASK FORCE INITIATIVE.
> The Director of the United States Secret Service shall take appropriate
> actions to develop a national network of electronic crime task forces, based
> on the New York Electronic Crimes Task Force model, throughout the United
> States, for the purpose of preventing, detecting, and investigating various
> forms of electronic crimes, including potential terrorist attacks against
> critical infrastructure and financial payment systems.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> I'm worried this will now mean they can use this as an umbrella to do any
> kind of spying on people that they want. Anyone could be labeled a
> "potential terrorist."

That's something which we'll likely learn about as abuses occur, just 
like any other law. One instance that's already been described as an 
abuse is use of Section 314, authored by Senators Sarbanes and Daschle 
(both Democrats), in an investigation of political corruption in Las Vegas.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103812,00.html

I'm not convinced yet that this constituted an abuse. I'm also not 
convinced that using Patriot Act provisions to gather information on 
anti-war protestors constitutes an abuse, but I'm of the opinion that 
Congress should never have repealed the Sedition Act of 1918.

> Now most of what the patriot act talks about has to do with controlling
> terrorists, and a lot of it is good stuff, but I just think it has a lot of
> potential for abuse.

Every law has that potential. Even the absence of law has that potential 
-- just look at how the Supreme Court interprets matters these days. The 
Tenth Amendment is meaningless thanks to majorities of robed rogues.