Holocaust Museum attack, post-Tiller: Does DU think we need another Patriot Act to Protect Us?
(This is not a call for another Patriot Act by DU user, Land Shark. He makes his view clear here. He makes some good points, and this is thoughtful reading along with GW's blog entry below. -rep.)
"If we call Tiller's murder and these other acts domestic terrorism, aren't we inviting the anti-terrorism gun to be pointed at the heads of all Americans, with officials "connecting the dots" and pre-emptively arresting, harassing or spying on people because they FEAR someone might possibly do something because their political rhetoric is passionate or heated?"
The murder of Dr. Tiller.
The attack on the military recruiters.
White supremacist apparently the one who opened fire at the Holocaust Museum today.
(Post more recent news if you like...)
Does DU think that existing laws are inadequate to deal with this problem, or do we need new tougher legislation AND/OR a "crackdown" in terms of concentrated enforcement of existing laws (which are already fairly draconian)?
This is building up to potentially be the excuse for yet more loss of rights, as I've posted recently, connecting up a very recent US Supreme Court decision as well. Please See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&add...
Will we be seeing Patriot Act II, -- or would it be III or IV by now?
Does anybody think that any special campaign against domestic right wing terror can be isolated to just one side of the political aisle? Can A Democratic administration and Democratic congress really crack down only on the Right wing side? We've lived through these time periods before, and we always consider it overreaction when we have perspective from history, like the Alien and Sedition Acts of the late 1790s, the Espionage Act, internment of Japanese as "threats" during WWII, etc.
Thomas Paine, 1795, in First Principles of Government: "An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
Be careful what you wish for, and reply with your thoughts. I probably won't "defend the thread" -- I'd like to see what DU thinks, since my position's already reasonably clear from the linked post.
Clearly, these acts are crimes, and despicable ones, the question is what is the APPROPRIATE response, and why is the normal criminal justice process insufficient, if it is? Just because it's a despicable crime, does that mean even the sky's no limit?
If we call Tiller's murder and these other acts domestic terrorism, aren't we inviting the anti-terrorism gun to be pointed at the heads of all Americans, with officials "connecting the dots" and pre-emptively arresting, harassing or spying on people because they FEAR someone might possibly do something because their political rhetoric is passionate or heated?