3 ms·
The standard method is by drawing a distinction with regards to the degree of the restrictions. In other words, the argument is that the extra powers granted by
by michael_dorfman 15y ago
The standard method is by drawing a distinction with regards to the degree of the restrictions. In other words, the argument is that the extra powers granted by the Patriot Act are far less severe in their reach, and far more restricted in their actual use than the powers wielded by the other regimes in question.
The extent of emergency powers, in law and in actual practice, vary wildly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_emergency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_emergency provides an overview.
And, 14 years is by no means a record; Israel has been in a State of Emergency since 1948, Syria from 1963 until last month, Egypt since 1967, etc.
- Andrew_Quentin 15y agoYou're trying to set a record with maintaining a state of emergency in the free world? The other standard method is by not comparing the free world with dictatorships. We can criticise both the Patriotic Act and the state of emergency in dictatorships and hold them to different standards or criticise them in different tones based on the degree of digression as compared to the values they claim they uphold and our own values.