John Ashcroft's Amerika

Captiol Hill Blue ^ | 22 Nov 02 | Doug Thompson

[pgyanke]

"In your case you will likely see Ashcroft as using his powers wisely and any Democrat successor as wildly abusing their powers."

---

I've suggested no such thing. Please try to stick to the facts and the issues. Getting personal just muddies the water.

[MattAMiller]

Hens and crumbleing firmament come to mind.

This database is far from an inevitabilty. Even for someone who wanted a police state it's an enormously ineffecient way to go about it.

[snooker]

1. fire
2. set
3. ready
4. and lastly, get facts about what you are intending to write/speak.

... oops by the time we get to step 4 we have already done steps 1-3.

The usual disinformation. Read the actual source data for yourself.

snooker

[pgyanke]

"All power granted is used/abused. Whither you see it as being used or abused tends to depend on whither it is being used against you or not."

---

From a criminal's perspective, sure. However, law enforcement powers USED are far different than law enforcement powers ABUSED for the law-abiding citizen.

[monday]

"The abuser of power will take all they need to further their aims."

An abuser of power can not "take all they need" if they have none. I think we are talking about two different things. You are talking about corruption. Corruption is illegal, however people who are powerful in government are less likely to be caught because they can shield their corruption. This is another reason to not grant great powers to government officials.

It isn't what I was refferring to however. I am talking about the legit use of power granted to officials to basicly shut down the opposition. It is the reason we have checks and balances and sharing of power in gov't. Granting wide spread powers of survelance to the justice department whose head is appointed by the Administration is like setting up a private spy agency controlled by whoever wins the presidency. The potential for abuse is great and likely no one knows for sure all the ways it could be abused yet.

[pgyanke]

monday: "An abuser of power can not "take all they need" if they have none."

Me: I agree. However, they can take MORE if they have SOME. For example, those in a position to enforce the laws can abuse this power by prosecuting the innocent or heavy-handedness, et al (as we have seen done many times in history). Most tyrants aren't voted into power, they take it by abusing the powers they were granted.

monday: "Granting wide spread powers of survelance to the justice department whose head is appointed by the Administration is like setting up a private spy agency controlled by whoever wins the presidency. The potential for abuse is great and likely no one knows for sure all the ways it could be abused yet."

me: I agree with you. However, as I stated earlier, I have yet to see credible evidence the recent legislation does more than break down problems created by 30 years of Demo-nut regulation. I'll agree they are out of control when I see proof of their curtailing our rights. So far, I've seen a lot of hyperbole and hysteria without any hard facts to back it up beyond quoting the perveyors of the hyperbole and the hysteria.

[MP5SD]

You: "Only when the first ten Amendments are replaced with the Ten Commandments will this country truly be God's country. It's a slow, painful process, but we're finally heading in the right direction.",

Me: "To support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC"

[monday]

"However, law enforcement powers USED are far different than law enforcement powers ABUSED for the law-abiding citizen."

You understand that almost everyone can be harrassed quite legally by law enforcement. The IRS is the most popular, because it is impossible to file a perfect tax return. Targeting political enemies for prosecution is abusive but not illegal. If it was easier to find out potential crimes committed by the opposition, no one granted these powers are going to ignore them.

In case you think you have to commit a crime to be harrassed by law enforcement, talk to people who have lost their homes or cars, because someone they knew or their child left a marijuana ciggarette in the ash tray.

Or people who run child care facilities wrongly accused of child molestation, or ranchers or developers taken to court for ranching or developing their own land which happened to have an endangered species living on it.

The potential for abuse is almost unlimited due to the immense governmental powers already granted.

[pgyanke]

There we go. Now we agree. :-)

These things are abuse. As far as it being easier to find out dirt on your political enemies with this legislation... ask Hillary about the FBI files.

Abuse is abuse regardless of the controls in place.

[MissAmericanPie]

Your right and it scares the daylights out of me. What the heck are they thinking?

[gcruse]

In his religious ferocity, Ashcroft has mistaken
the Tenth Amendment for the Tenth Commandment,
which he believes says, "Thou shalt have no
government other than the federal."

[Savvymusician]

You have more faith in the government than I do I guess.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

This issue I raise more so than Ashcroft, which is what all the chicken littles are whining about, is what controls will there be on the IRS? The ATF? Who is going to be the final check and balance of data integrity? I am not a big Spielburg fan but the movie about the thoughtcrime proposes an interesting prospect; if all of the evidence to make an arrest is derived from a computer database, what actions can be taken to prevent anyone from inserting information which creates false leads or worse, false arrests? There are too many questions and not enough foresight into the powers being created. I think that this needs to go back to the prospect of hardcore old fashioned on the beat police work, instead of looking for magic black boxes to solve the problems. Let the CIA do it's job overseas finding and killing our enemies and the odds of our nation being struck again drop even more.

[If6was9]

This is in fact the most relevant point. Intelligence services first rank threats by capability. In that respect any number of advanced information collection techniques, and a broadening of the powers of the state, represent a dangerous capability in the wrong hands.

Worse, it doesn't have to be the actual power elite of that period (a Hillary Clinton for example) to invite abuse. Any low level functionary with a grudge or an agenda can reak havoc on the innocent.

[COBOL2Java]

I am not a big Spielburg fan but the movie about the thoughtcrime proposes an interesting prospect; if all of the evidence to make an arrest is derived from a computer database, what actions can be taken to prevent anyone from inserting information which creates false leads or worse, false arrests?

Remember the Sandra Bullock movie The Net?

[ozzymandus]

Yes, I could. If I wanted to.