Of sexual abuse and terrorism

Every once in awhile we have a knock down drag out thread over some town or another putting some restriction on people who are on some state's list of sex abusers. One side says that virtually anything should be OK since it children are being protected, while the other says that giving government that power is very dangerous. Well, gee, maybe now people can see the problem. I would be willing to bet that some terrorist attack, somewhere, at some time was prevented by what Bush permitted to be done. I can't prove that fact, anymore than advocates of these registries can prove that they prevent child molestation, but I would be willing to bet that at least once this worked to prevent terrorism. So why not just let the NSA spy on people to prevent terrorism? What harm comes from having the email and phone calls intercepted and overheard? The same harm that comes from those registries. Innocent people have their rights infringed with no real basis that any good is being done.

Either we have civil liberties or we don't. Either accused sex offenders have them or we don't. Either potential terrorists have them or we don't. Many here are all too willing to trade freedom for safety in regards to sexual abusers, so now the government has decided on your behalf make that same trade in regards to terrorism. As the saying goes, we know what you are now we are bargaining as to price. Maybe if more people had stood up for the sex offenders back then, this government wouldn't have dared to go after people making foreign calls.

Allowing the government to change the rules after the fact, and after getting plea bargains, was a grave affront to the Constitution. We didn't want to make the effort to go after sexual abusers the right way, by openly changing the law for future abuses so we took the low and easy road. Now, shock of shocks, the government wants to take the low and easy way to stop terrorism. Who would have thunk it?

if some one is on a list of sexual offenders, that usually means they have been convicted of a sex crime. In other words, a jury found them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Many sexual criminals are repeat offenders. Although our justice system is far from perfect, it is reasonable to assume they are more likely to commit another crime than some one who has a clean record.

But, to spy on some one who has never been accused or convicted of a crime, that's a different ball of wax.

Of course, technically - not necessarily practically. I think I see the argument you are trying to make, where do we draw the line, how do we strike the balance between protecting our citizens from harm and protecting our citizens' civil liberties?

and the numbers who may have pled to avoid trial despite being innocent, I think it is a hard case to make that all of those people are guilty. Add in the fact that sodomy was a sex crime as recently as 2003 in 14 states, and interracial dating was a crime as recently as 1968, and the issue becomes even cloudier.

I find it very troubling that so many folks here are willing to make US civil liberties optional whenever it suits them in reaction to what's the current media "witch hunt."

Each generation seems to have its crisis of Civil Liberities when fear is whipped up by the media against the "demon" du jour.

Remember McCarthyism, accused Communists. After all, if you weren't Communist you needn't fear.

Accused terrorists and accused child molesters are the demon du jour nowadays.

Remember the hysteria here about alleged "baby rapers" during the days following Katrina? As long as there was an accusation folks were willing to believe it here.