Quote:
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Mar 29 2004, 09:43 AM
I think that claiming the Patriot Act is responsible for the lack of a terrorist attack on the U.S. since 9/11 is, at the very least, more than a little generous. I'm not denying that some of its provisions have not been beneficial in the fight against terrorism - that kind of claim would be just as absurd as giving complete credit to the Act - but some of its provisions need a good hard second look without the emotionalism of 9/11 in such prominent play.
|
i am not claiming anything other than the fact that there has not been any terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11 (whereas there have been many outside the US) and i doubt anyone is prepared to argue that its due to a lack of effort or intent on the terrorists part.
... so i would say that the argument that the Patriot Act has nothing to do with that fact would be a weak case as well. no attacks. zero. how many arrests? how many foiled plots? ... many.
i agree the Patriot Act should be under scrutiny. thats how our legal system works. thats what free speach is. our system is set up with enough checks and balances that it should works correctly in protecting it's people. but i also agree that it can be a little helpful to inject some realism into the discussion of fighting terrorism in the 21st century.