You seem to think that lack of visible abuse is no proof that abuse is not happening.
I could, on similar grounds, point to the total lack of attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11 as evidence that the Patriot Act and associated security measures are working. Of course, logically, there is nothing that absolutely proves that an attack would have taken place without the Patriot Act, but it is a data point that should be kept in mind.
Whatever the Home Security forces are doing, even if you say it isn't proven effective, you have to admit it isn't proven to be a failure either.
The people we are fighting aren't playing by any rules, and if the security apparatus fails, we aren't talking about a bank getting robbed, some marijuana hitting the street, or one or two people getting murdered. Nineteen people, with no elaborate weapons or devices, or even exceptional skills, figured out how to take out part of Manhattan and almost 3,000 people. This made a hell of an impression on me, and also on those charged with keeping us safe.
Current Events » in reply to Proving the Patriot Act is necessary.
re: Proving the Patriot Act is necessary.
The whole thread (29 posts)
- Coulter attacks Clelands war record. (Even lower than the Kerry pic.)
- Actually, she told the truth about his war record
- Coulter responds
- re: "getting nervous"
- Cleland's war record.
- He hasn't claimed anything but what happened. But extending Coulter - - -
- So you think Coulter is justified?
- I didn't say that, did I.
- No less so than the claims of Bush using the PA to create a fascist state
- So you agree that Coulter is justified in degrading a veteran's sacrifice because he isn't a Republican.
- So you think it is OK to call President Bush a fascist because he isn't a democrat?
- I want to see niether in politics
- re: So you agree that Coulter is justified in degrading a veteran's sacrifice because he isn't a Republican.
- So you agree that Coulter is justified in degrading a veteran's sacrifice because he isn't a Republican.
