A two part question concerning the War on Terror

[ted]

Over the past few years, many new programs and laws have come about to deal with the problems we face as a nation in recent times in regards to terrorism. Some were set up to deal directly with specific threats and others were designed to interrupt perceived future events that deal with our national security.

Without examining current laws and their potential to be abused, we could face severe suspensions of our rights, either by the current administration or by future ones. On the opposite side, we could certainly leave ourselves exposed to various threats if we stop short of giving due diligence to the threats which are out there.

My two part question is this:

(a) Which laws and/or programs, which were created as a result of 9/11 and the war on terror, should be repealed and/or abandoned, and why.

(b) What should replace them as tools to protect the country?

To me, there is a fine balance between safety and freedom. The desire to be a free people and safe from terrorism are two ideas which are just as strong as the other. If we do too much in the name of protection, the Government becomes a monster. If we do too little, then the Government has failed to protect us from outside threats. Both of which are extremes which no one wants.

So, having the benefit of 5 years experience since the attack of 9/11, which programs are working and which ones need to be scrapped- and what should replace them?

Please, if it's in your ability to do so, keep this one civil.

Thanks,

t.

[ted]

No takers?

I figured there would at least be one good idea out there, judging from the hundreds of threads dealing with this subject.

Interesting......

t.

[CSLewis]

I think the patriot act really helped to curtail alot of terrorist activity. It is just important that we all vote in order to keep those in office who are accountable and held accountable.

[Guest yod]

The surveillance changes worry me the most because I remember how Clinton abused government powers to retain power. The next Democrat President will do the same.

Yet we need to be able to listen in on suspected terrorist activity. The problem is who gets to decide what "terrorism" is? In the future it could be defined as anything which threatens the government including faith-based activism.

[followerofjesus]

The Bill of Rights & the constitution being threatened is a major concern.

[Guest yod]

The Bill of Rights & the constitution being threatened is a major concern.

The Democrats have already shown a wanton disregard for those long before this war began.

Example: Where is abortion guaranteed by the Constitution? How is it that they can change election rules so their candidate is the winner after an election has already been held and they lost? Where is it stated that "sexual orientation" (a behavior) is guaranteed "civil rights" status?

This is just a few more reasons why I don't trust the Democrats to abide by the spirit of these laws to fight terrorism. They are simply too corrupt and utterly dishonorable.

Yet the Republicans had better learn that christians will simply stay home and let them lose elections if they don't define the differences better than they have been in recent years.

[Akabu]

I agree yod.

When the democrats can use haggling over the meaning of the word "is" to justify lying to a grand jury, which in the rule of law is "perjury" and then turn around and claim others are immoral for trying to protect the lives of everyone from terriorists, you can see that they are a morally bankrupt group of people.

The concept of the constitution being a "living and breathing" document show how willing they are to pervert the only visible guarantee we have of our rights, and the limits of government over us. They use it to promote the false belief of "seperation of church and state" when the constitution only states that government cannot make legislation limiting our freedom of religion. The dems learned one thing really well when they were in power from the late 50's to early 90's. That being if they want to limit our rights and freedoms they need to do it slowly so as to not awaken the American public to their ultimate goal.

[ted]

I guess what I am asking for is specifics.

The Patriot Act encompasses many laws, some of which have yet to take effect. Some, as well, are being challenged in court, and others have taken effect already. Which of these laws are good or bad, and what should be done to replace the bad?

Also, there are other new laws besides the ones incorporated into the Patriot Act. Are these laws worth keeping?

t.

[buckthesystem]

Over the past few years, many new programs and laws have come about to deal with the problems we face as a nation in recent times in regards to terrorism. Some were set up to deal directly with specific threats and others were designed to interrupt perceived future events that deal with our national security.

Without examining current laws and their potential to be abused, we could face severe suspensions of our rights, either by the current administration or by future ones. On the opposite side, we could certainly leave ourselves exposed to various threats if we stop short of giving due diligence to the threats which are out there.

My two part question is this:

(a) Which laws and/or programs, which were created as a result of 9/11 and the war on terror, should be repealed and/or abandoned, and why.

(b) What should replace them as tools to protect the country?

To me, there is a fine balance between safety and freedom. The desire to be a free people and safe from terrorism are two ideas which are just as strong as the other. If we do too much in the name of protection, the Government becomes a monster. If we do too little, then the Government has failed to protect us from outside threats. Both of which are extremes which no one wants.

So, having the benefit of 5 years experience since the attack of 9/11, which programs are working and which ones need to be scrapped- and what should replace them?

Please, if it's in your ability to do so, keep this one civil.

Thanks,

t.

To your two part question:

(a) The laws allegedly passed "due to 9.11" (if you look into it you'll probably find that a lot of these "anti-terrorism" laws are just a rehash of law that were "tried on" long before "9.11") that absolutely have to go are:

The Patriot Act!

The Military Commissions Act of 2006

Any, and all, surveillence law passed

"Anti-terrorism" Act

Laws restricting entry to and exit from your country by people on the "no fly list"

Any law that demands passports from other countries be compatible with US passports

As for part (b): Well, in my view, there doesn't need to be any specific new laws to protect America, just that the CIA and other intelligence services do their job properly and pay more attention to detail. This is as much the responsibility of other countries as it is the responsibility of the US.

It is impossible to say which legislation is "working" because without it, things could have been exactly the same. We'll never know.

A big thing is that, according to what I read, all this "terrorism hysteria" has just about ruined the USA tourist industry.

[ted]

Aahhh, that's more like it.

Specifics.

I think you are correct in saying that many of the laws enacted with the Patriot Act were simply re-hashed versions of laws already on the books, or updated versions of failed bills which never made it to law.

So, you think that all new surveillance laws should be repealed? How so?

In addressing part "b", you state that the CIA just needs to do their job better (summation), is giving them better surveillance techniques a way to accomplish this?

It is impossible to say which legislation is "working" because without it, things could have been exactly the same. We'll never know.

Things remaining exactly the same is something that was a problem, IMO. I think we had to step up the screening process concerning who comes in to the country from other nations, and for what reason. We do the same thing in our very homes, to a much smaller degree. Someone knocks at the door, we ask who it is before letting them in.

Same idea, really.

I don't know too many people who leave their doors open to just anyone who might want in without knowing why.

As for the impact on the tourism industry, I'm not sure what effect "terrorism hysteria" is having on it. If it's a huge problem like you suggest, then maybe we could raise the tax on candy bars, cigarettes, or health shakes to make up for the lost dollars?

Personally, I'd rather have the comfort of knowing that a country is serious about it's safety before visiting it, rather than the other way around.

But.....

I'm not sure if I like the idea of the TSA or not. While a major problem with passenger screening was discovered under private contractors, putting the job under Government control doesn't seem like the smartest idea, either. Perhaps utilizing private screeners with more intense Government oversight would work better?

Thanks,

t.