Legend11 said:
Sure... A passage from Wikipedia: "The act also expanded the definition of terrorism to include “domestic terrorism,” thus enlarging the number of activities to which the Patriot Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied." Now the only problem with this is that their definition of domestic terrorism is so broad that it can include pretty much anyone and any group the government wants. For example the Department of Homeland Security pulled a page from it's website that listed gay rights, animal rights, anti-war groups, environmentalists, and environmental groups falling under "domestic terrorism" because in their opinion they could spawn domestic terrorists. So the government has the ability to do searches without their permission, read their financial, medical, email, and phone records and can detain them without charge or court order and not be required to tell friends or family where they have been taken. A member of a gay rights group that was mentioned was shocked because the group has always been peaceful and it's members are all upstanding citizens in society including lawyers, doctors, etc. I feel the Patriot Act is *extremely dangerous* because if an administration got in that was even more to the religious right than the Bush Administration (yes I know that seems unbelievable now but you never know what the future holds) they could use the Act to persecute groups they're opposed to such as gays, etc. Sources: http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid45479.asp http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid45479.asp |
Thanks for example Legend11. I agree with you that the Patriot Act is dangerous. However, many of the provisions you mentioned are being challenged as unconstitutional. American citizens and law makers have to power to make changes to this act or remove it altogether. That's my point, soon Chavez will have a stranglehold of Venezuelan goverment where people will no longer have a voice. So what would your choice be Bush or Chavez?
Wii Code 8761-5941-4718-0078
