If you consider the right to privacy a freedom (which I do) that has been affected since 9-11.

Edited by author 03-17-2003 02:53 PM
Searching your mail for instance, is now entirely at the discretion of the government (no warrant required). You can be held without a lawyer and tried in secret, also the time-honored practice of attorney-client privilege no longer is valid. These are just a few off the top of my head. As ol' Merle said, anyone who hasn't seen it going downhill "hasn't got eyes in their head".

Hi Chico,

The Bush assault on the fourth amendment frightens me. The president claims the right to indefinitely detain American citizens without due process or access to counsel.

The secret INS detentions are on the same line.

And what terrifies me is that a year and a half after 9/11 the Administration still claims the need, the authority, and the right to basically 'disapear' people indefinitely.

I could accept the mass detentions as an emergency response to a terrifying event. BUT, as these people checked out to be okay they should have been released or deported with a reasonably full accounting of the process.

This relates to the next frightening assault on liberty where the whole freedom of information act is being gutted.

We know that our government and security agencies abuse their powers. I would even argue that this is somewhat appropriate. The interests of those who are fighting crime and terrorism are almost intrinsically at odds with the needs of an open society.

So the counter balance to secrecy and abuse must include access to government information. Hence the FOIA. I can accept that this information will be incomplete, but this administration has crossed the line.

The removal of restrictions on the FBI is another example of the removal of rights. Again, we know that the FBI abuses the law and violates the rights of Americans. This isn't a liberal conspiracy of defamation. And so we imposed some restrictions on _some_ of the worst abuses of civil liberties.

Hell...we _know_ that the FBI has engaged in dirty tricks to punish people for their Constitutionally Protected actions. That is one of the things that they do best. Now the limits have been repealed.

Mark talked of privacy...and I'll second that. I'll go so far as to submit that the purpose of the Patriot Act clause that specifically allows the feds to search our library records, and prohibits disclosure of such a search, was intended by the president to make us nervous about our own reading.

A major purpose of the Patriot Act was to make us all fearful. To make us look at our local librarian as a potential Judas.

As Ari said 'This isn't the time for that kind of comment. It is never the time.'

Maybe I am paranoid. BUT the FBI/et al didn't need the Patriot Act to do their jobs. Judges seldom deny search warrants to the police/FBI/etc. And to argue that requiring the FBI to first get a warrant will make it easier for terrorists is to argue against our Constitution.

George Bush and John Ashcroft have commited high treason against the Constitution of the United States. They should be arrested by the proper authorities, tried, and put in jail.

My opposition to the Death Penalty extends to traitors, but I'll offer that what Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft have done to our country and way of life is far worse than what Tim McVeigh and Bin Laden have done.

McVeigh and Bin Laden are whacko criminal nut jobs who killed American Citizens, and who should be punished.

Bush, et al, are engaged in an ongoing assault on the core principles of America.

When we are physically attacked we can seek justice or vengeance, cry, and move forward. When our Constitution, the basis for our unique sense of American identity, is attacked, twisted, and subverted by criminal traitors then we are well and truly fucked as a nation and a people.


-the fourth amendment.

What most bothers me about the post 9/11 actions of the administration are the things that just are not needed.

For example, the effective overturning of the 4th amendment.

One of the most frightening things to me is that when they have done things like requiring librarians to spy and inform on their patrons, they have also made it illegal for them to even tell us it has been done. This also holds for other info-gathering activities. If I have info on you, they are now allowed to get it from me, under threat of legal penalty, and I am required NOT to tell you about it. That sort of super-secret governing is what we fought a revolution to get away from.

Thanks to all. Privacy is the critical concern. The rejection of TIA was a hopeful sign but probably that battle's in the early rounds. And asking citizens to do police work has always been a bad idea, even though things like the Amber Alert and America's Most Wanted have produced results.

Frankly, most of the others - without diminishing them - have impacted not the average American, but those suspected of terrorist acts or aid. Are any of those people even American citizens? (I don't recall.) Lindh, who I know was American, was afforded due process, such as it was, and plea bargained 20 years.

You'll get no argument from me about privacy, but the question was about Haggard's remark. And so far, the average American, the gal you see at Wal-Mart or Peet's, has been impaired only when flying and, if Rich is right, when doing research in particular areas.

Edited by author 03-17-2003 08:09 PM
That's the argument that you have nothing to fear from government intrusion, constant surveillance, etc. as long as you are innocent. This classic argument also suggests that only the guilty would oppose such measures. So having your reading habits, your web browsing habits when you use the internet terminals at your local library, having your mail confiscated and read, and having people watch where you go and what you do are not really a problem, unless you are guilty. I disagree.

These are chilling effects (also the name of a very good web site) in that they tend to make people circumscribe their own habits. You don't need any active censorship because you censor yourself ("and he loved big brother"). This means less objection -- at least visible objection -- to government (and corporate) policy and frankly that means a nation that is less and less like the USA is supposed to be.

So it's (now) supposed just people just suspected of terrorist activity? How do we know, since it's secret. The government says it's ok, don't worry, and above all don't question it, but we're not going to tell you any information so you can tell whether or not we're even following our new lax rules -- and that's ok? Look at past people suspected by the government of being dangerous radicals who needed to be spied upon. People like Martin Luther King, Jr. People like John Lennon (*others below). The government is now talking about making it possible to revoke the citizenship of any naturalized citizen using secret tribunals as the "court". No lawyer, no due process, no public accountability whatsoever. That's incredibly dangerous, even if it is just "them". How long do you think it's gonna be "them" and not "you"?

I'm sure you've heard the quotes "first they came for.. etc." and I don't need to repeat it here. These are real dangers in this erosion of rights. It ALWAYS starts with "them" and with the "guilty". During the Vietnam War librarians were approached to try to get them to find out who'd been reading "dangerous" books. The librarians told them to take a hike. They are not legally able to do that now. It always starts with something that sounds good -- in the Vietnam war it started with books on explosives. Who could argue with that? The librarians saw that the bigger problem is that there's no reason it can't go to the next level: who's reading "subversive books" -- what are "subversive" books -- Marx? Paul Robeson? Ken Kesey? Orwell? What if you're reading up on explosives so you can safely take out those rocks and stumps in the back 40 -- should you be investigated? When does it stop being "them" and become "you"? Liberty is a dangerous business; if you want an entirely safe country, you can't have liberty.

(*Some other people past US governments have considered dangerous radicals who needed to be spied on: Jimi Hendrix, Billie Holliday, John Lennon, Ernest Hemingway, Wilt Chamberlin, Tony Randall, Carol Channing, Gregory Peck, Bill Cosby, Steve McQueen, Barbra Streisand (her career may be over, but she probably is happy to know she's still got it :), Joe Namath. Above are people spied on by the FBI and/or people on Nixon's enemies list (people who our executive branch officials were instructed to "do a job on").)

"Liberty is a dangerous business; if you want an entirely safe country, you can't have liberty."

And, sadly, you don't even get an entirely safe country.

As I said, you're preaching to the converted about privacy. The Patriot Act didn't suddenly usher in a new era of snooping. As you posted and re-posted, a-holes in government have always compromised citizens' privacy, legally or not. But, and I believe my own twisted logic, members of Congress fear unchecked intelligence-gathering because it eventually threatens their own precious, trough-centric careers. None of them wants a J Edgar envelope from Poindexter with photos, web histories, financial records and voice mail transcripts. Our privacy, by and large, is protected by elected officials protecting themselves. Those little weasels are our warriors!

Interesting point, chico. Now we just have to make sure they don't pass special laws making only spying on _them_ a crime.

Edited by author 07-15-2008 05:37 PM
moto kurye
kurye
motorlu kurye
kurye
kurye
kurye
motorlu kurye
motorlu kurye
gavurlar.com
adult forum
kurye
motorlu kurye
web tasarımı
web tasarım
e-ticaret
alışveriş
fazlageldi.com
google reklam
sanalhersey.com
alışveriş