>> Define “domestic threats”?
Timothy McVeigh ... the Ft. Hood shooter ... the schmuck that flew a plane into the IRS building in Austin. Those domestic threats.
>> According to the DOJ, we are “domestic threats”.
And yet we’re still here. The Obama Administration and Holder DOJ has had the backing of the Patriot Act for over a year ... and has yet to use it to round up or prosecute conservatives or freepers.
>> Patriot Act has been used in some high-profile cases that had nothing to do with terrorism and will continue to be.
The Patriot act is a tactic for counterterrorism and criminal justice. I see no problem with it being used in non-terrorist criminal cases.
>> You trust in your government far too much.
As Reagan said with regard to the Soviets — trust but verify. The government needs the capability of defending this nation — to withhold such capability would be malpractice on the part of the citizenry.
The government MUST be watched very diligently — but they must have the legal capability of fulfilling their Constitutional mandate.
SnakeDoc
“And yet we’re still here. The Obama Administration and Holder DOJ has had the backing of the Patriot Act for over a year ... and has yet to use it to round up or prosecute conservatives or freepers.”
Give ‘em time. Like I said. You trust government too much.
The USA PATRIOT-type powers are pretty much the same asked for be Reno during the Clinton Administration.
“The Patriot act is a tactic for counterterrorism and criminal justice. I see no problem with it being used in non-terrorist criminal cases.”
So, are there any limits to the police power?
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-12.pdf
“As Reagan said with regard to the Soviets — trust but verify. The government needs the capability of defending this nation — to withhold such capability would be malpractice on the part of the citizenry.”
The government intentionally DOESN’T defend the nation.
“The government MUST be watched very diligently — but they must have the legal capability of fulfilling their Constitutional mandate.”
There are many who would argue that these expanded powers violate that Constitution. If they intended to defend the country, we’d have secured borders, not laws intended to further control citizens.