Friday, January 30, 2004

From Tom Leete ----

this article does have some valid points...but look at this quote in the
first para. - "indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without charge or access to
an attorney". this kind of inaccuracy makes intelligent discussion of his
more rational concerns difficult. it's simply an untrue statement. nothing
in the patriot act does this.

i do believe we need to make sure there is a "firewall" between the actions
permitted in dealing with non-us citizens and us citizens. i don't believe
non-citizens are entitled to all us constitutional rights. 2 reasons: if
you're not a part of the culture that produced and reveres those rights, you
shouldn't be able to selectively claim them as a mantle of respectability
over actions intended to undermine this many fundamentalist
islamic fuckwits, like the usf prof, try to do. also, perhaps a very crass
reason, i don't want to pay for the monumental machinery of justice required
to protect us citizenry to be applied to non-citizens. thirdly, i WANT our
government to be able to move much more quickly when dealing with

i'm fully aware of the "slippery slope" syndrome. i agree the gov. still
needs healthy skepticism and careful watching by the citizenry. but much of
the rhetoric about the patriot act is simply politically motivated cant. if
bill clinton had enacted the patriot act, brokaw, jennings et. al. would be
embracing it as the most enlightened piece of legislation since freeing the