Do you support ISA (or the Patriot Act for that matter)?

[aquila]

Thought this is one of the other controversial issues in both American and Malaysian societies these days. Wonder what yall think.

For the record, I think the Act itself is necessary. You do need a mechanism to capture terrorists before they launch their attacks. What I disagree with is the brutal treatment of detainees by the police. Therefore, I think the act itself is good, the people who administer the act are the ones who are guilty of the problems.

I think citizens have to be willing to give up some civil liberties if they want increased security, especially in these days of uncertainty. I think police do need to have at least a min amt of evidence before making their captures and not discriminate against race or political ideology. Again, as I said earlier, this act leaves a lot of loopholes for abuse. However, it is the responsibility of public officials to make sure that doesn't happen.

[SpRInG]

yea, i agree that it's a very good concept.... however it is very vulnerable towards abuse

so, it's kinda hard for me, whether i totally support this act or not... but for now, maybe i would not give full approval to this act, until someone can give some solid arguments to convince me... =)

[USSDefiantNX74205]

I disagree with having such a law where anyone (mostly opposition politicians in our case) can be arrested and locked up without a trial due to reasons like 'endangering national security' or 'disrupting racial harmony'. Sounds too communist or totalitarian to me. I only agree with the law when it's used to lock up potential terrorists or militants (read: REAL dangers to national security).

That said, I think it shouldn't be abolished, but instead reviewed so that a clear line can be established on what can lead to an arrest and what can't under the act. Abuse of the act can then be avoided. I mean isn't it ridiculous that criticizing the ruling government can get you locked up for 2 years without a trial?

[Thirdshifter]

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety

-benjamin franklin

[jiinjoo]

I think most people miss out on the middle ground, because as things stands, ISA sounds like a good idea (it does to the CIA) but liberty is so deeply engrained in some people's blood they just can't give it up. The definition of "where to draw the line" will change from time to time, because of different internal and external circumstances.

To me, the first step is to ensure that the clause "prolonged indefinitely" in ISA should be removed. Trail must be granted, at the expense of the government since they claim that this person is dangerous in the first place. Our independent judiciary system will have to decided independently whether this lady/gentlemen is innocent of guilty during that period of time, or else he or she should be able to go free on bail.

If this person IS actually super dangerous, there can be other mechanism such as probation (go free but not into the mountains where obl is hiding, agree to report to the police station every month) which might not be enough, but at least a step in the right direction. As long as he can be detained again when new evidence is found that this person is not supposed to be walking around the streets.

Interestingly that's how some of us here are "criminalized" in US (yes, report to INS every month, fingerprinted, photo taken etc.) and yet we are "free" in many ways to do what we want still.

How, still not enough "liberty"? :) :) :)

[Zeroth]

I think having ISA is giving the leaders too much power. But then again, it is quite necessary to maintain stability within the country. To arrest terrorist and stuff... we just can't wait until they blow themselves up rite?