Replies

A question - do you believe that it was right to intern Americans of Japanese, Italian, and German descent, particularly when there was no proof that the individuals being detained had sympathies for the governments we opposed at the time?

The mere fact that the Supreme Court does not object to something does not make it right. The Supreme Court, remember, originally had few qualms with the Jim Crow laws.

It is impossible to pull out specific instances of abuse. It is an abuse if the government has "mistakenly" ran surveillance over people not involved in terrorist plots. Unfortunately, the Patriot Act more or less ensures that such "abuses" will never come to light.

I quote Section 213:

SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.

Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `In addition'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(b) DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--

`(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);

`(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and

`(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'.
---------------------------------

Now, "mistakenly" running surveillance on an innocent person would certainly constitute an "adverse result" - if people knew that the Patriot Act was being misapplied, they would be less inclined to support it and they would take this valuable crime-fighting tool out of the hands of the government! Therefore, by the act's own words, it seems reasonable to expect that evidence of such searches will not be brought to light in a reasonably swift amount of time.

If the Patriot Act is used to thwart terrorism, I support it. That would include the fundraising.

If the Patriot Act is used to bust neighborhood gambling, bootleg liquor sales, ghetto/barrio prostitution and drug sales, I consider those abuses.

Do you truly believe that if evidence comes to light during a roving search regarding one of the latter cases you mentioned that it will not be used in a court of law?

"A question - do you believe that it was right to intern Americans of Japanese, Italian, and German descent, particularly when there was no proof that the individuals being detained had sympathies for the governments we opposed at the time?"

During wars societies may be deprived of the intellectual nicety of dealing with purely "right" and "wrong."

The Wrong was when we were attacked. In response we were reasonably fearful of further harm. We acted reasonably, temporarily depriving some of their freedoms.

It was eventually proved that some among those groups DID intend to do us harm.

I say what we did was smart and wise. The USSC found no fault.

The harm done to those interned was just one of the sad facts of war--innocents get harmed.

My folks were part of the WWII generation, and they certainly did not instruct me to have guilt over this harm. They taught me how the justifiably were fearful of our enemies.

To me, depriving my wartime enemy of any advantage is the highest priority.

Some may feel an even higher priority is laying claim to some title of the most conservative among conservatives, like it is a badge worthy of adulation, even if that means death.