Do you think the Patriot Act(which suspends portions of the Bill of Rights) is necessary to fight Terrorism?

Question

Descriptive terms like "whining" are similar to name calling which are pejorative attempts to put one party or the other in a disagreement in a bad light. They have no real argumentative value. I personally think the term has become hackneyed and I wish the users of those terms would cut the crap and try to express themselves more intelligently backed by facts and truths.

This comment was sent to one of the respondents to my Q. I see no good reason to be political about the issue of terrorism. We are all Americans here regardless of our political party affiliations. I pesonally consider myself an independent voter who votes for the best candidates. You (who are bent on dividing us into antagonists) might consider rethinking your approach to politics if you want a better, stronger and safer nation. Who is it who said: United We Stand: Divided We Fall.

4 of the 6 answers posted say the Patriot Act is unnecessary, of the 2 that remain, 1 for the act claims it applies only to non-citizens, which is not correct and says Clinton did it first (as if that is relevant which it is not) and the other says its no big deal bec its been done before as if that constitutes an argument for the act which it doesn't. The best answer which accurately describes the distorted logic behind the Patriot act and the dangers to our freedoms and rights if we let it stand, goes to:

Answer 1

I keep seeing that justification. "We're at war, and during war you have to make sacrifices". The amazing thing about the justification is that it's completely wrong. We're not at war. Congress never declared a war. There is no identifiable enemy that we're fighting.

The war on terror is a marketing phrase. It means the US is going after everyone that might pose a threat to it. Every subversive influence, everyone who stands up and points out that what the administration is doing is illegal, every nut-job across the world who hates America. And anyone the government arbitrarily decides is a threat, regardless of whether there is any proof or not, and regardless of whether they have ever committed a crime or not.

The problem is, there is never going to be an end to the War on Terror, because there will always be people who want to hurt us. There will always be terrorists. Why? Because there always have been, throughout the history of the world. They just used to be called criminals and bandits. But terrorist is such a better term, because it justifies any means necessary to stop them.

Yes, there have been tragedies -- bombings and hostage situations and threats and mayhem. But those things are nothing new. They've been going on for thousands of years and the only difference is that technology has improved to the point where the bad guys have better weapons.

Fighting terrorism and fighting terrorists are two entirely unrelated goals. Of course we should stop people from blowing things up. We're not going to get everyone, because we're never going to eliminate crime or kill all the bandits. Still, we try because we oppose senseless violence. But remember, that's only fighting terrorists. It does nothing to stop terrorism.

Terrorism is relying on hatred and fear to hurt people. It's doing things that are illegal, in the name of questionable goals, just because you can. It's a process of stripping people of their freedom and happiness because you don't think people deserve to be free and happy. It's about controlling and hurting those who are different from you, just because you don't like them.

Now, take a look at what the new Patriot Act does. And ask yourself, how much of it is really aimed at stopping individuals, and how much of it is aimed at using hatred and fear to control people. Look at the definition of terrorism above, and ask yourself -- how many of those things are our government doing every day?

Then ask yourself if the ends (even if they were somehow magically achievable) justify those means.

Answer 2

Where was all the whining when Clinton started the domestic spying, looking into bank transactions, and looking at our email?
We haven't lost any of our rights to the Patriot Act that we lost to Clinton.
Name one. It still takes a court order. The prisoners at Gitmo aren't US citizens and not protected by our rights.
We lost more rights to Kerry and his lawyers and allies in the mainstream media than to the Patriot Act.

Answer 3

No. In fact I see the erosion of our civil liberites in response to terrorism as the greatest danger of terrorism. We give up the Bill of Rights, or any portion of it, and they have won. We are no longer the free and independent nation they revile, just another frightened mass of people willing to let someone else take responsibility for their decisions.

Answer 4

No!! Fear has caused the people not to grasp the full importance of what has been allowed.A few supposed terrorist are paraded in your face while domestic spying is rampant and civil rights are violated in the name of safety. Who benefits from this action besides the government????

Answer 5

It is completely necesarry. We have had something just like it in every war. Roosevelt arrested people without charging them, he even detained a whole race during WWII. Just like the patriot act today, it is done to keep our country as safe as possible and to help us win the war

Answer 6

Some of it is necesary, some is not.

The "not" parts include those which violate the constitution. (illegal search and seizure, etc.)