BruceHall said:
It is a myth that the Patriot Act greatly increased the Federal government powers. In fact, all the Patriot Act did was apply powers and tools that the US Federal government could bring to bear on other crimes, such as organized crime, to terrorism.
I have heard people over and over again talk about the erosion of civil liberties, and even make rather paranoid statements about never flying again, but with little evidence or examples. What SPECIFICALLY do these people have in mind? What specific incidents can they point to? What specifics of the Patriot Act?
Defenses can always be overridden but that doesn't make defenses worthless. If a defense stops 90% of attacks, is the defense worthless? Condoms do not stop the spread of AIDS but they do slow it down. Are condoms a useless defense?
If more is needed I will post more.
I am reluctant to make a foe of you but I sense that at least a portion of this was aimed at me, Bruce, so allow me to retort.
I do not recall mentioning the Patriot Act. No, after re-reading, I sure didn't. It is only one of numerous brands of Federal reaction to the atrocities committed in the name of Islam on 11 Sept 01, and before. Most were done by Executive Order and not even by legislative action in Congress. And as a retired Marine and ex-sworn LEO, I understand fully those who claim that some/all of these were/are necessary to combat illegal OC activities as well as potential terrorism. However, comma, consider this:
(a) In any effort to combat terroism throughout the 20th Century, none have been successful at ending a single example with a
defensive strategy. To be successful, a terrorist campaign only need to continue to exist. Ergo, if only 10% are successful, if is usually enough for the terrorists to win. This tends to be true of wise guys, too. Soooooo, if you say 90% effectiveness is good enough, you are completely incorrect, IMHO.
(b) I think that the invasion of privacy without PC (probable cause in this case, Bruce) is potentially dangerous to the individual freedom of the American people if only because of the fact that even if all of the terrorists in the world were to cease operations tomorrow, forever, this law could (probably will) remain. It is a very powerful investigative tool for those who assemble cases based solely upon documentary evidence. The average US Attorney loves the RICO Act, too. No recent Federal law is more abused by Federal procecutors IMHO than is the RICO Act. If we can judge the future use of the Patriot Act by that, you may have sufficient cause to fret in the future.
(c) I believe that there are numerous examples of abuses but I only know of one at this moment. It was not from the Patriot Act, but from the abuse of TSA regulations at RDU. While waiting for the arrival of a friend, I was accosted in the
parking lot by plain clothes security personnel, cuffed, hauled into a holding area, and detained while my personal vehicle was torn apart under a detail search. I was cavity searched and eventually questioned, but as they found nothing to justify their actions they became the more frantic to discover something and grew abusive. I was eventually released, after several hours. No explanation was offered, and I was advised that as one of the "insiders" I should understand what they had done and "forgive and forget." These are matters for civil litigation to resolve, but this is the source of my apprehension with airports, Bruce, not a rumor I heard, or some article in
Newsweek.
I will dig on the Web and see if there are others examples to report to you.
Semper Fi.
PS: condoms do not work if you get AIDS in any case, do they?