Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
→Reasons opponents give for their objections: still waiting for reasons
:::So long story not very short, Ed, I would love to try and make the fixes needed to put that section back in! I'm just not 100% sure what can stay and what needs more work. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:28, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::So long story not very short, Ed, I would love to try and make the fixes needed to put that section back in! I'm just not 100% sure what can stay and what needs more work. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:28, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
A friend of mine at Wikipedia worked several weeks on their Patriot Act article and asked me for a critique. I gave him one, maybe I can find the email. He was infuriated at first, but calmed down a few days later and said I was right.
I suspect the main (only?) reason people are against the act is that it really does something to stop foreign terrorism - other than invading a country. And the last thing Democrats or liberals (like there's a difference?) want is for Bush to actually succeed in stopping terrorism. Because that would (a) make it hard for them to get elected on the grounds of his 'ineffectiveness' and (b) because they sympathize with the aims of the terrorists.
If there's anyone who really thinks [[civil liberties]] of ordinary non-terrorists might be infringed, I'd love to hear about it. But remember that when the Clinton White House looked at 800 confidential FBI files of domestic political opponents, no one batted an eye; while one office break-in forced Nixon to resign. Let's not have any hidden [[double standards]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:35, 8 April 2008 (EDT)