>>>>But weren't you talking about the Patriot Act as it pertains to us, the average people in the US?
>>>
>>>I was talking about human rights.
>>
>>What about the right to be safe?
>
>Hi Renoir,
>
>We have a law that is probably as onerous as your Patriot Act, so I include that in my below...
>
>Where does the trade-off between "safe" and "secure" meet?
>"Safe" is to be safe from acts that might harm your personal being.
>"Secure", on the other hand, includes a lot more.
>Are you secure if you can be plucked from your home or the street and placed in detention without recourse to a lawyer?
>Are you secure if government officials can rummage through records about you, many of which you don't even know exist?
>Are you secure if your neighbour or co-worker or some store clerk can inform authorities about things they may interpret as unlawful (in the conext of the Patriot Act or our similar act)?
>Are you secure if, after being picked up, you are sent to Syria or Belarus or some other place for "rendition"?
>
>All of these things, and many more, are high potential infringements of you liberty as you exercise your right to "...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...".
>
>While all governments must fight/defeat terrorism, they ought not do it by making each one of us feel unsafe. It is intellectually dishonest. We have more chance of being hurt crossing the street or having a hospital stay or driving on a public holiday or countless other activities that we do every day without a second thought. If "safety" is the primary motive then there should be laws more stringent than the Patriot Act to protect us against those things.
>
>cheers

Well said.