[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
One last Patriot Act thing (was Re: it inflames me)
I hope this doesn't kickstart the acrimony again, but there's something that's
been rolling around in my head all weekend, and I feel I need to get it out there.
On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 TMEV817 at aol_com wrote:
> If the Patriot Act saves just one life, especially that of a child,
> isn't it worth it?
This is so unfair. First of all, it's a cheap rhetorical shot, putting those
who might disagree with you in the position of advocating child murder. Like
asking "have you stopped beating your wife?", the formulation of the question
pushes discussion into a prejudiced and highly emotionally charged direction.
Secondly, it's a logically flawed question, on several levels. There's a touch
of post hoc propter hoc in that no causal chain has been established to justify
the assumption that the Patriot act has or will saved one life, child or no.
On the logic of this question, one could justify throwing all speeders into
jail for a year (or more), because last I read, the highest cause of child
death in this country is currently traffic accidents (many, many times more
deaths per year than those who died on 9/11). So if we threw all reckless
drivers in the brig, that would probably save the lives of far more children
than the Patriot Act will. I don't think that's right (despite the fact that
speeders annoy the heck out of me on the road ;-)), and I hope you don't,
either. There's a false dichotomy in there as well, in that it is not proven
that there are no other alternate approaches to the situation except the
Patriot Act and letting children die (for example, it seem to me that one could
argue that the evidence of recent months indicates that our intelligence and
investigative agencies *did* have enough information to see this coming, but
failed to recognize it, and therefore what is needed is not sweeping new powers
of surveillance and control, but rather a restructuring of what we already have
to make it more effective. Similarly, I have to wonder why a crime committed
with boxcutters justifies stepping up the production and development of
high-tech massive defence. But that's a topic for another time and place...).
Finally, I have to ask, would *you* be willing to spend a year (at least) in
jail for a crime you did not commit, on the off chance that the real criminal
might be in there with you? I don't think I would, unless it could be proven
to me that the criminal is there, in which case I would argue one might as well
let me go, if you've got the real guy. I don't believe punishing people for
crimes they didn't commit is appropriate, under *any* circumstances. I think
the risk entailed in that position is part of the price of a free society, and
it's a price I'm willing to pay. I don't want anyone punished unjustly so that
I can feel more safe. I think that kind of safety is an illusion, anyway.
And I will really, really try to back off this topic from now on...
--
Don Smith Robotic Optical Transient Search Experiment
donaldas at umich_edu http://xte.mit.edu/~dasmith/
"Life is ... moments flabbergasted to be in each others' presence."
- "Speed" Levitch in _Waking Life_
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/