13 Responses to “At Least We’re Secure.”

1. #1 |  Anonymous |  September 15th, 2003 at 4:59 pm

   I am horrified! If they catch more criminals it would be a dissaster!

2. #2 |  Joe Sims |  September 15th, 2003 at 5:10 pm

   Well, it certainly IS a lot easier to catch more criminals when they criminalize everything… After all, as Eric Blair was so prescient to point out, “Freedom is Slavery”…

3. #3 |  Sternn |  September 15th, 2003 at 5:55 pm

   Hey, why not just do away with the constitution completely? Then it would be much easier to catch criminals.

4. #4 |  Bobby |  September 15th, 2003 at 6:36 pm

   I thought the problem with the Patriot Act was that it infringed on freedoms not that it actually caught “ordinary” criminals. What exactly is an ordinary criminal or ordinary crime anyway? Until there is some proof of people who are not criminals, ordinary or not, being caught and prosecuted by this I don’t see the problem.

   And yes I know innocent people get arrested and convicted sometimes, but this has gone on far longer than the existence of the Patriot Act.

   Ordinary crimes, huh.

5. #5 |  Jon H |  September 15th, 2003 at 10:33 pm

   Bobby writes: “Until there is some proof of people who are not criminals, ordinary or not, being caught and prosecuted by this I don’t see the problem.”

   Is it your belief that ordinary crimes are so hard to investigate and prosecute that we need to restrict everyone’s civil rights to do so?

   Our full-to-bursting prisons argue that this is not the case. There seems to be no particular problem filling them up.

   If our system of justice had been hamstrung, we wouldn’t have one of the world’s highest incarceration rates, if not the highest.

6. #6 |  Bobby |  September 16th, 2003 at 8:01 am

   It is not my belief that we are having trouble investigating and prosecuting “ordinary crimes”. I just don’t understand why if we run across criminal activity due to the Patriot Act we should ignore it. After all it isn’t investigators run amok. There is a degree of judicial review similar to that which has long been used to combat organized crime. If there is a stakeout for a murder suspect and the police happen upon a rapist or some other “ordinary criminal” should they let the rapist go because it was not in the scope of their particular investigation?

   As far as the bursting prisons I think we all know that we could solve that by decriminalizing non-violent drug offenses.

   I also am not at all convinced that “everyone’s” civil rights are being violated. I don’t feel violated because I am not commiting crimes (at least not lately) and if I was and got caught then I would have to face the consequences. The Gestapo is not coming.

   Regarless of my opinion on the matter I think it is important for those of you who expect the worst to fight your fight. This way things will probably end up somewhere in the middle, where they should be.

   I am still unclear as to what an “ordinary crime” is. Does this mean anything short of actually blowing shit up? I’m serious I don’t get the concept. Is murder ordinary? Rape? Arson? Money laundering? Please enlighten me.

7. #7 |  B Kieffer |  September 16th, 2003 at 8:37 am

   Bobby,

   The Patriot Act was advertised as necessary to combat terrorism. That is not what it is being used for, and it is likely that anti-terrorism was never it’s original intent, but rather just a candy coating. I am not a paranoid person, but I find this very disturbing.

   Your analogy of catching a rapist while on a stakeout for a murder suspect is not a logical parallel to what is going on. That would assume that investigators are looking for terrorists, but information they gather leads them to other criminals who would otherwise not be caught. In reality, the criminals have already been caught, and the definition of “terrorism” is being stretched to encompass their crime. Whether they actually serve the harsher sentence, or prosecutors simply use it as a bargaining tool, is irrelevant.

   I have no problem with catching criminals, but the fact is that there are laws on the books to prosecute all of the crimes you listed, and they should be used. Frankly, I’m a little disturbed by folks that advocate “by any means necessary” when it comes to our criminal justice system. That kind of attitude can lead to all sorts of terrible, if unintended, consequences.

   A violation of one person’s civil rights is a violation of all our civil rights.

8. #8 |  Joker |  September 16th, 2003 at 8:38 am

   Hey Bobby, the next time you carelessly smash your car into something and get charged with using a weapon of mass destruction, you’ll get enlightened.
   You’ll do a decade or two in jail and never work again in your life (being a terrorist and all).
   Then again, maybe you’ll plea guilty to a lesser charge and do only half that time.
   Anyway, keep us all posted….heh heh heh ;-)

9. #9 |  Bobby |  September 16th, 2003 at 10:40 am

   Joker:

   Appropriate name. The idea that crashing your car into something would be considered terrorism is laughable.
   Your argument, as opposed to that of others on this thread, is completely unserious and paranoid.

   I appreciate everyone else’s opinions and I see your points, I just don’t see this as being the horrible civil rights violation that you do. I could be wrong and if presented with more than hypotheticals will freely admit it.

10. #10 |  Joe Sims |  September 16th, 2003 at 11:39 am

    “The idea that crashing your car into something would be considered terrorism is laughable.”

    Bobby,

    Tell that to the families of the Marines who died in Beirut.

11. #11 |  Bobby |  September 16th, 2003 at 12:03 pm

    Joe:

    You obviously missed the context of my statement. I was responding to Joker’s example above. He seemed to make the point that the Patriot Act was so far reaching that a simple car accident could be considered terrorism. In fact your example is puzzling as well considering we are discussing the Patriot Act and not Hezbollah suicide bombers from 20 years ago.

12. #12 |  Joker |  September 17th, 2003 at 10:37 am

    Bobby, yes my example was a little tongue in cheek, but the underlying message should be clear. There is an overly powerful tool available to the justice department to be used for purposes that it wasn’t designed for.
    My example didn’t mention accidents – I said ‘carelessly’ i.e. perhaps one could be driving a little too aggressively or had a few too many…just use your imagination a bit (the prosecutor will – to score career points).
    You can laugh now if you want but how does that saying go….?
    ‘he who laughs, laughs for the last time’…or something like that ;-)
    Anyway, cheer up Bobby, it won’t be so bad….

13. #13 |  Bobby |  September 18th, 2003 at 2:21 am

    Joker:

    I’m perfectly cheerful, but thanks for the advice. It would be political suicide for a prosecutor to attempt to try to make the case that a person driving “aggresively” or who “had a few too many” was using a weapon of mass destruction. He would be laughed out of court and discredited. I have heard many persuasive arguments against the Patriot Act (see B. Kieffer’s latest post) but this is silly and maybe meant to be. Which begs the question: why am I commenting again? Because I am a sucker for a debate, even a foolish one. That wasn’t meant to insult you, if you are even reading this, it is self depricating. Maybe I can find some kind of 12-step group for this problem.

    If only I believed in 12-step programs.

---