Talk:Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Articles for an international encyclopedia should not assume that the USA is the only country.
- It doesn't. Hence the "The draft version of the bill would expand the powers of the United States government..."
The Domestic Security Enhancement Act is one scary piece of legislation. Interestingly enough, the current administration isn't trying to pass it -- yet.
It has been suggested by some that this is an over-the-top bargainaing strategy in the spirit of the maxim "if you want a kitten, ask for a pony." In other words, it is designed to be sacrificed to gain a different (and less frightening) goal of the Bush Administration.
Unfortunately, there is always the possiblity that this beast will get passed. Aslo unfortunately, most people will simply ignore the problem and gripe to their friends. Please write your congressperson!
If we were not able to before, we can now kiss the Fourth Amendment goodbye. Does anyone want to re-evaluate including George W. Bush on the list of dictators? --Daniel C. Boyer
While I find the entire act scary, I tend to think that wikipedia-articles isn't the right place for political activism. The entire article reeks of being written by someone opposing the act.
- This might well be true, but I would prefer, and think that others deserve, a list or precis of POV problems with the article rather than this general statement, so that someone can make whatever revisions are called for. --user:Daniel C. Boyer
Also, the entire article is written such that you have to be a USian or know the US very well to get anything useful out of it. Maybe one of the most US-centric and non-useful articles for people that don't know the US I've ever seen on wikipedia. :)
- I don't see the slant: everything stated in there is factually and objectively true. I don't think it is at all polemic, and actually is rather restrained. If you are concerned with some specific section, please point it out and I will be happy to have a look, or just go ahead and edit it. As for US-centrism, again, I don't see it, but maybe that's just because I'm from the US. :) The article is about a proposed US law, so it is by definition going to have to do with institutions of the USA. I thought I'd made everything pretty self explanatory (i.e. one could probably guess what the Department of Justice does even if one does not already know, and it's linked just in case), but again, if there is anything specific you feel could use some clarification, let me know here, or just edit it... -kwertii
The only problems I see are a couple of weasel or weasel-like situations (e.g., "It has also been suggested that, had the text of the bill not been leaked, the administration would have delayed its deployment to co-incide with a future terrorist attack in an attempt to secure a wider basis for approval of its measures."). blahpers 16:24, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
[edit] With the advent of the 110th US Congress...
I highly doubt this'll pass. 1ne 05:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
