Yesterday, Howard Dean made an interesting comment in which he compared pro-lifers to the Taliban. In a nutshell, this incident summarizes why Catholics no longer have a home in the DNC. Here's an unofficial transcript from [sic.] Catholics for Dean: "And the implication that the government has the right to tell a woman when she can and cannot bear a child is different, but has the same philosophical root as the implications of the Taliban telling women how they're to behave and how they're to act."
That should read:
"And the implication that the government has the right to tell a woman when she can and cannot kill a child is different, but has the same philosophical root as the implications of the Taliban telling women how they're to behave and how they're to act."
This from a man who wants to have the government run the health care system.
The government tells me what I may and may not do everytime I turn the ignition key on my car.
But can you imagine a President with "Patriot" I and II who views pro-lifers as terrorists? With a stroke of a pen, we can be stripped of our citizenship and sent to the camps.
This is why I oppose the Patriot act, at least in its current form: Bush will not be president forever. I shudder to think how Hillary Clinton, or even Primal Dean, might use those powers.
This also why I oppose the Patriot Act. Can you imagine Hillary in charge with these powers?
Okay, it's "put up or shut up" time: what powers of the Patriot Act are scary to you guys? Be specific.
Eric,
For one thing, the power to break into and sneak around my house without having to even tell me they were there if they don't charge me with anything.
I recall hearing they already had that power.
"They" did already have that power -- it just wasn't for terrorist cases. And "they" have to get court approval, and "they" have to report to Congress about when and how often "they" use this power.
Did you know that the authorities can tap your phone? Go through your medical records? Look at what you check out from the library? Monitor your bank transactions? Of course, they have to go through a judicial process to do any of these things, or else "they" are committing a crime themselves.
Next objection?
And there is the matter of the president being able to declare any organization or individual 'terrorist' with a stroke of a pen. No due process. At which point, you are a non-citizen, 'enemy combatant' and have no civil rights at all. Your unalienable rights are denied you. You have no right to face your accuser or know the charges against you. You have no right to trial or due process.
The ironically named "patriot act" overturns the 1, 4 and 5th Amendments to the Constitution, as well as the entire Declaration of Independence, without the mandatory vote by the several States.
It is much more serious than the writs of assistance used by English occupying troops in the mid-1770s.
1. The Declaration of Independence is unquestionably an essential part of the American tradition. It is not a part of American law.
2. The idea that the president can designate someone, even an American citizen, as an enemy combatant is not new. It is at least as old as the Civil War and perhaps older (maybe a legal historian could weigh in.) Otherwise, all of the Confederate troops could have demanded due process and jury trials. The Supreme Court found in WWII that American citizens acting as German spies could be designated as unlawful combatants, turned over to a military tribunal, and executed on their sentence. That's a lot less than Johnny Walker Lindh got -- it's too bad we didn't kill him as an example instead of spending millions on his trial.
Next?
My main fear about the PATRIOT act is not that the president can say you're an enemy combatant and take away your rights. My main fear is that law enforcement don't need you to be one. They're allowed to conduct searches of your house and property without telling you first. If you find out, they can make you not able to tell anyone. The worst part is that there is no judicial oversight. While they need a judge to sign a paper, they only need to say that it is for the sake of national security. They don't need to prove it they only need to say it, which is scary to say the least.
On the original topic, this is just an old trick that has been used by politicians; they compare their opponents to a group who is already hated and so you hate their opponents because they are just like that group. Its a really bad trick and I pity anyone who falls for it, because when you really look hard at anything or anyone you can find all sorts of similarities between them and Nazis or Al Queda or Communists. You just gotta realize that although everything has similarities most of the time the differences outweigh them. In this case you have to see that he doesn't consider Pro-Lifers equal to the Taliban. He's just using this comparison to make them look bad.
Just so you know although I'm not a fan of Dean, I am a liberal and that may bias my take on his statement (definition-one who favors greater freedom in political and religious matters; one who favors reform).
I know we haven't sent anyone to Mars yet...but perhaps Howard Dean is one of the frist to arrive from Mars! The question isn't whether we are telling women to bear a child or not...the child is there, the question is to protect and nurture that precious life or destroy it. Perhaps Dean can be the first to go to Mars...one way!
Padre