1. Well, if you’re supposing that the decrease in crime is due to more surveilance and police action, my response is totalitarian states tend to be more safe if less free.
2. Of course I read it, I was asking a rhetorical question IE “Joey Cohen/al Khattab is nobody important and deserves no special treatment.”
3. “The Act expanded the authority of US law enforcement agencies for the stated purpose of fighting terrorism in the United States and abroad. Among its provisions, the Act increased the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial and other records; eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expanded the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and enhanced the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. 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.”
Among other things, I would suspect. I know your schtik is to be the pro-government arch-conservative or whatever, but I don’t understand how someone could support something like the Patriot Act without throwing the PC crap aside and calling the enemy by name.
What reduced crime in NYC was statistical analysis and intelligently chosen prosecutions.
For example: a crew of muggers is victimizing subway passengers at certain stops, ripping off dozens of citzens every month. It is a waste of resources to pay undercovers to ride the train back and forth for days and days, hoping to be there the day they choose to strike. But, the cops catch someone at one of the stations in question for dealing marijuana. They see he has priors, they know he lives in the neighborhood and is well aware of other criminal activity. They present him with a choice: they will prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law or they will let him plead to lesser charges if he gives them the names and addresses of members of the mugging crew, some of whom will inevitably be known to him.
Voila. Without having to patrol the stations with uniforms 24/7, or having to tie up an undercover team for weeks, a couple of hours of smart policing by one uniform and one detective has shut down the mugging crew and prevented hundreds of crimes.
2. Of course I read it, I was asking a rhetorical question IE “Joey Cohen/al Khattab is nobody important and deserves no special treatment.”
Nice try, but you didn't know who Joey Cohen was. You wrote of al-Khattab (who, unbeknownst to you at the time, was also Cohen) in these terms above: "They use it [the PATRIOT Act] to crack down on potheads and small time crap, yet turn a blind eye to a guy like this."
If you originally considered him a nobody, why would you have contrasted him with other nobodies like "potheads and small time crap."
If I had wanted wikipedia's take on the PATRIOT Act, I would have searched wikipedia.
I asked you for specifics, and you have offered me none.
"Increased abilities" - what abilities? "Eased restrictions" - what restrictions?
Among other things, I would suspect.
But you don't know. Until wikipedia posts some more generalizations, of course.
I know your schtik is to be the pro-government arch-conservative or whatever, but I don’t understand how someone could support something like the Patriot Act without throwing the PC crap aside and calling the enemy by name.
So, in other words, you would prefer a law that criminalized Islam?
The enemy is militant Islam.