<p>I dont understand. This has happened consistently in history and never has it slipped down the slope. </p>
<p>Either way this is necessary to our security. How can you possibly see it as a bad piece of legislation. No doubt you agree that it works. Also the govt really will not be able to take and do something like this to a John Smith, perhaps a Mohammed who just came back from a terrorist camp in Iran for instance. But I actually really would like to take the time and commend you for admiting that the government is really not cherry picking random people, because i think unfortunately alot of people are so mislead that they are under the impression that america is just as tyrannical as iran and other totalitarian states. But youve got a decent head on ur shoulders i can see.</p>
<p>But you have to agree that it works? Right? I just see no reason to shield these people from what they deserve. Its similar to the torture argument. You are willing to spare one guy the torture he will inflict on a hundred others, given the opportunity to escape torture. In 99.9% of these cases these people really are guilty and this provides a way to take politics and bias and civillian life out of a military and national defense manner. Just forget for a momen t everthing bush has done, and simply remember terrorism. Now try to understand what bush has done like wiretapping and like the watchign and freezing of financial assets(which the NYT revealed to the enemy unfortunately). None of these things are done to ordinary people.</p>
<p>Bush—a “King”? Prove it. Don’t just engage in hyperbole, it’s an entirely overworked rhetorical device. How is a lame duck President, who has less than two years left in office, suddenly become “King”? I understand why you don’t like this President. He’s not my favorite person either. But, try to excercise just a little subjectivity. Try to ask yourself if you would be this upset, this alarmed, if this same legislation were about to be signed into law by someone from your side of the political aisle?</p>
<p>I currently judge my security but the amount of domestic terrorism- none. Thus i feel i have securtiy. And i judge liberty by the freedoms ordinary peopole have who are not connected to the war on terror. People like me and people like you. I have my freedoms. Thus I have both</p>
<p>gonlani is a great example of why things like the recent laws are so important.</p>
<p>They think the laws don’t apply to them. They do. Golani’s probably too young, but some of us grey hairs remember how many folks were caught up in various commie hysterias of the 50s and the anti-war protester hysteria of the 60s, and how many folks were, very subtly and sometimes not so subtly, blocked from jobs and careers. And that was mild compared to what can be done now. At least then, no one was incarcerated for life.</p>
<p>Interesting that you have to go back 40 or 50 years for some alleged abuses with absolutely no ties to the recent bill but conveniently forget the reality of 3,000 Americans being killed - with a vow from the perpetrators to come back and kill as many of us as possible. You don’t have to be a “grey hair” to remember that.</p>
<p>I fail to see how 9-11 deaths have anything to do with broad powers to incarcerate anyone anytime. </p>
<p>I also fail to see how broad sweeps of loosely defined “suspects” increase our security.</p>
<p>I also fail to see how suspending some of the moral principles on which our country was founded, and stooping to the level of those countries we abhor increases our security.</p>
<p>But heck, if the above are your vision, more power to you and your kind. We’ll see what happens in the upcoming elections.</p>
<p>"fail to see how 9-11 deaths have anything to do "
These powers and techniques have already resulted in the disruption of additional terrort plots and have saved lives; the fact that you “fail to see” the connection is your problem.</p>
<p>“broad powers to incarcerate anyone anytime.” Nope, the law does not affect any of the 300,000,000 US citizens </p>
<p>“broad sweeps of loosely defined “suspects””
Who is doing this or propose to do this?</p>
<p>“suspending some of the moral principles on which our country was founded,”
There are plenty of safeguards for the judicial process</p>
<p>“There are plenty of safeguards for the judicial process”</p>
<p>Yes, if you care to rot in prison for decades. </p>
<p>FF, if you don’t think we’ve done broad sweeps, in Afganistan, Iraq, the US post 9-11 and so forth, then I admire the effectiveness of your rose colored glasses. </p>
<p>Hyperbole? Hardly. But, for one who just doesn’t understand basic facts, I can understand. </p>
<p>BTW, it is 300,000,000 residents, not citizens. So a good number of those 300 million don’t have even basic constitutional protections, either, thanks to GWB and his pronouncements, with a little help from a compliant congress, which is going down in flames as we speak because of this compliance.</p>