Our rights are being taken away-Patriot Act

[Guest freedomfighter]

I was going to say something... but...

It's very clear if you read the darn thing that it has the much loved checks and balances of a free society run by "we the people". Yes, it streamlines things to make it move faster... but the accountability is still there. I have read it and knew as soon as the report hit the news that it was bogus, or knew they had "picked" a left wing wacko judges... like has happened so often lately on other current court events (gay marriage). Most ALL of the concerns expressed through this thread would be eliminated by just reading the PA. It's typical media driven hype that has most all of you concerned.

[Michael]

Here’s my long-lost reply to Tannji’s post, from somewhere in the middle of this series; I suppose that much of this has been rendered obsolete by a half dozen pages of posts, but anyway, here goes…

 

I would claim that the relationship between those in power, and those over whom that power is exercised, is necessarily adversarial. Sure, the situation is more benign when those who are in power are responsible, “compassionate†and driven by some sense of interest in the public good. But these are only idealizations! The only true limitation on those in power is friction with other concentrations of power. I suppose that in high school civics class, this is referred to as “checks and balancesâ€. If the three branches of government are fighting it out amongst themselves, they’ll be too preoccupied to bully the public. The Patriot Act, and recent political currents in general, is part of a shift in power towards the executive branch, at the expense of the legislature and the judiciary. We can not reasonably expect the executive branch to “be accountable and to make amends†unless it’s forced to do so. The PA weakens that forcing. And the more power vested in one branch of government, the greater the overall influence of government in our lives.

 

I agree that magic abolition of government would only result in a power vacuum that would give rise to yet another, and probably worse iteration of government. It’s contrary to human nature to be able to organize into a group without vesting power in a central leadership. Yet, we should remember that setting limitations on that leadership is our number one priority.

 

Most of us would agree that the abridgements of liberties to which Americans have been subjected in recent times are not extreme. It’s easy to point to much more onerous restrictions of liberty in prior cycles of national security threat and consequent government reaction. But we should assess the present situation, moderate as it may be, in terms of which direction it leads, if taken to a hypothetical extreme. Clearly, shutting down the FBI, summarily opening our borders, abolishing government power to wiretap in any circumstance whatsoever, and removing all security from our airports will lead to a situation where the risk of terrorist violence will be far greater. OTOH, implanting a radio ID tag in the neck of every American, installing closed-circuit television in every bedroom, and routing all e-mail through a government-monitored server would reduce the odds of a the terrorist attack, not to mention also reducing crime in general. I ask this: which of these two hypothetical extremes is the greater evil? My belief is that the latter is the greater evil. Why? Because life by its very nature is rife with risk, uncertainty and misfortune. It’s true that the cornerstone purpose of government is to facilitate a system where people can live together in some modicum of cooperation, and that this requires that the individual surrender some portion of self-determination in order to allow this cooperation. But risk reduction through government intervention rapidly degenerates into folly. I’d rather take the risk, recognizing the very real possibility of harm – than to accept the remedies to eradicate that risk!

 

Terrorism is a risk. It may or may not happen. That shady character sitting next to you in a crowded flight – he may or may not be wishing to harm you, he may or may not be about to attempt to harm you, he may or may not be able to actually cause you harm – these are all possibilities, and unpleasant possibilities indeed. But government power is altogether a different animal. It is not limited by lack of ability, or lack of means, or inauspicious circumstance. Suffer government to grab enough power, and it WILL harm you. It’s not a question of risk; it is a certainty.

 

Tannji wrote: “You have a choice. Let a terrorist violate your rights, or let the government.†Exactly! And here is my choice: I’ll let the terrorist violate my rights. Why? Because if he tries, he may or may not succeed. But the government is guaranteed to succeed.

 

Consider that a common thread amongst most terrorists who hate America is hatred of pluralism; in particular, hatred of the idea that there should be limits on the extent to which society can oversee an individual’s actions. These “fundamentalists†advocate a paternalistic, intrusive state where the individual does strictly what is “taught†by the leaders – by the central organ of power – which conveniently places itself beyond the pale of questioning. The premise is that “good people†who have nothing to hide, have nothing to fear from such state intrusions; it is only the miscreants who need fear the state’s wrath. Sound familiar?

 

So what do we do about the threat of growing government power, especially executive power? Do we take to the streets, signing songs and carrying banners? Do we support radical candidates for public office? Do we stock up on ammo and canned food, and head for mountain hideaways? Well, these are all options, I suppose. But I think that it is precisely by bitching and moaning that we do the most PRACTICAL good! Why? Because by raising awareness, if necessary by erring on the side of radicalism, we can cajole the great majority of moderates to be more weary of potential government abuses.

 

 

A couple of salient quotes, somewhat paraphrased:

 

“If you agree to surrender some of your liberties as a sacrifice necessary to obtain more security, the result will be a loss of BOTH liberty AND securityâ€. (Ben Franklin)

 

“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.†(James Madison)

[Guest Phil1934]

Last week the courts ruled the Columbus Police Dep't could not search protesters outside the gates of Fort Benning for the annual protest against the School of the Americas. This group is largely nuns. The police said they scan everyone with a magnetometer and if it responds, they pull them aside for a body search. They needed to do this in the wake of 9/11. The court ruled that 9/11 was not an excuse to waive our Constitutional rights. So there are still some clear thinkers in gov't. One week to the election. Time to go CODE ORANGE again.

[pparaska]

Michael, that post was very lucid and well put. Thank goodness we have the ability (at this point) in the US to bitch and moan about things the government is doing that we don't like or believe in - and live free afterward.

[blueovalz]

Bravo Michael, Bravo.

[johnc]

Last week the courts ruled the Columbus Police Dep't could not search protesters outside the gates of Fort Benning for the annual protest against the School of the Americas. This group is largely nuns. The police said they scan everyone with a magnetometer and if it responds, they pull them aside for a body search. They needed to do this in the wake of 9/11. The court ruled that 9/11 was not an excuse to waive our Constitutional rights. So there are still some clear thinkers in gov't.

 

And that's why I'm not afraid of the Patriot Act. Despite the Orwellian predictions many have made, we are not anywhere near what "1984" predicted and our system is working. Maybe not as well as some would like, but most of us can't even get our cars running as well as we would like...

[Pop N Wood]

I don't think many people "fear" the PA as much as just don't like it. I know a lot of the ideas I presented were more to illustrate a point or to place things into an historical perspective than to predict where this act will lead us.

 

A big part of the "system working" is convincing others that this is not the way things should be done. The jury is still out on the PA. But the one thing in this thread that amazed me is the apparently large number of people who argued in favor of the act.