Content |
Not to nitpick, but if the House Judiciary Committee is going to be discussing the use of laws to prevent terrorism, why is the topic of conversation more consistently about child pornography and drugs? Maybe there's nothing to talk about: you know if a whole lot of terrorism was being prevented, we would've heard about it on Fox by now. I would question topicality, except that I know that this is more along the lines of what the new laws are being used to do.
As an individual, you have some rights. If you're affiliated with a group though, those rights go out the window. Do you belong to any groups? Religions? Me neither. I also note that when they raid places of worship, they won't be keeping track of what kind. The Attorney General mentions this multiple times, as if to make sure we know how little oversight we have.
Yet this is a kinder gentler Ashcroft, less sanctimonious. Somebody higher up must've given him a talking to after reading Patriot II (I hope). Still, in the Q&A with freshman Iowa Rep. Steve King, obliged as a Republican to throw softballs, they together scare me like Stephen King never did. Ashcroft was smart not to commit to the exorbitantly disconnected statistic (85%) on record, but he did agree that most of that trailer crank in central Iowa must be coming from foreigners. He adds that they are keeping an eye on foreign importation of precursors (ie. those things you can buy at most any hardware and grocery store in America). That's why they need to monitor everything on the internet. Hello?!? If anyone should know better it's the head of law enforcement himself, but we should all know by now that as a representative of this administration, he's not here to share the truth any more than he wants to answer Ms. Jackson Lee's many questions.
|
