Well I see we are really having a debate over 2 issues, Ashcroft and the current policies of the Administration.
Czar- you would do well to look at the bias of the "journalists" you read. Every one has them. We all do. Having an opinon/perspective requires it. The problem is do you report based on the facts and try to present a balanced view, or do you subjugate objectivity and select your facts and wording to support your bias? It seems to me those who you have quoted have decided that their minds were already made up, and others be damned.
Among their faulty analysis.
Someone held prisoner for 3 years, released and then reincarcerated. This is Our Attorney General Ashcrofts doing. Ummm who was Attorney General 3 years ago? Who was President?
Faulty argument 2. Ashcroft, being religious cannot act properly in office.
Lets say he was a true athiest. Now say what you will, a true athiest if honest, acknowleges that there is no higher power. Oh there are other people who are higher on the food chain, but in reality, his judgement is equal to theirs. Freed thusly, he can afford to be amoral. Now what is his oath worth? And to what higher calling can their be than to his own self interest? Does this have to be the case? No, of course. He can decide to do his job as he ought. The reverse argument holds for Ashcroft. He is still free to do his job. You may disagree that his implimentation, or even that his competence is in question, but you must go on the merits of his actions, not his religion.
Now that I have chastised you for your method of analysis of Ashcroft, I will say that your concerns about liberty are warranted. Now before someone flames me for my questioning things, I am of like mind with Thomas Jefferson. Someone has it in his sig on AT in fact. Something to the effect of "He who chooses security over freedom deserves neither" Did Jefferson believe we should have unrestricted freedoms at the sacrifice of all security? Of course not. The context was that he was concerned that restricting freedoms in anticipation of some theoretical attack was a dangerous thing. It sets precidents that justify the removal of our freedoms, by one act at a time, in order to protect us. There ARE times when measured, balanced, legislation needs to be enacted in order to promote the common security of all. This is one of those times. We as a people, are obligated to weigh the merits of those acts, and voice a rational disagreement if need be. I must say I hate the name- Patriot Act. I remember a quote of Samuel Johnson. "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" The implication of the title is that if you do not agree with the Act, you are unpartiotic. I dislike that.
So, how do I feel about the Act? It's a mixed bag. It does something, but it is up to us to make sure it is used against those who would harm us, and not those who the government would target as a political tool.
Facebook
Twitter