"Land of the Free" ?????

[Scayde]

The Bush Administration appears to be fighting two wars. The first is the so-called war on terrorism. The second is a more ominous war against the privacy and freedom of the average American.

For years, our government has seemingly operated under the assumption that it has the freedom to spy on virtually everything we do. But this attitude became much more overt after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, when the USA Patriot Act came into being. Signed into law a mere month and a half after terrorists attacked the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, the 140-page monstrosity—a veritable wish list of expanded powers for the FBI and CIA—must have been sitting on a bureaucratic shelf somewhere just waiting to be enacted.

Thankfully, many Americans are starting to view this legislation for what it is—a menace to freedom. “The Patriot Act has been condemned by librarians and by city councils from Los Angeles to Philadelphia,” write Jennifer Hahn and Wasim Salfiti in Mother Jones (May/June 2004).

Nevertheless, President Bush continues to voice his support for the Patriot Act. In a recent speech, he announced his desire to ensure that the Patriot Act, parts of which are due to sunset or cease at the end of 2005, not only becomes permanent law but expands the pervasive and sweeping power it gives to the government. In light of President Bush’s ardent support for the Patriot Act, let us be reminded of some of its current provisions.

The Patriot Act expands the definition of terrorism by defining “domestic terrorism” as illegal acts “dangerous to human life” that “appear to be intended” to influence government policy by “intimidation or coercion.” This vague wording has free speech activists, ranging from environmentalists to anti-abortionists, concerned that their right to protest could easily be classified as a terrorist activity. Furthermore, under this law the Justice Department is allowed, without a hearing, to seize the assets of any alleged domestic terrorists and their supporters.

The Patriot Act changes the standards for search warrants, previously protected by the Fourth Amendment, to allow “sneak and peak searches” in any investigation. Instead of serving the warrant in person, federal agents can now secretly snoop around in your home. You will probably never know they were there.

The Patriot Act also permits “roving wiretaps.” This allows the government to tap all phones or computers a suspect might use—including, for instance, those of a neighborhood church or restaurant. Unconnected third parties can easily be swept into this wider net. Moreover, by claiming relevance to a terrorist investigation, government officials can now track your incoming and outgoing calls without a search warrant.

Without demonstrating probable cause as required by the Fourth Amendment, the FBI can obtain a subpoena to search your personal records held by a library, bookstore, church, bank, video store, etc. The subpoena cannot be challenged in court. It also includes a “gag order” to prevent you from ever knowing the subpoena was served. What is most alarming is that no judge or court order is required. Anyone from John Ashcroft down to an FBI field officer can demand the same kind of records simply by issuing what is called a “national security letter.” The government agent, not a judge, has only to satisfy himself that the information might be “relevant” to an ongoing investigation.

Incredibly, the FBI seems to think we should make it easier for its government agents by expanding governmental surveillance powers to include information services such as the Internet and e-mail.

On March 10, 2004, the Department of Justice and the FBI filed a joint petition with the Federal Communications Commission, the government agency that regulates the communications industry. They asked the FCC to allow government agencies to tap into Internet and broadband services in the same way that they have been permitted to tap phone conversations through digital and analog phone systems. Look beyond the document’s technical jargon and you will see a clear and insidious attempt by the FBI to once again bypass our right to privacy, among other constitutional rights.

Not only does the FBI want the right to tap into and monitor our Internet and e-mail communications, they also want to be assured that communications companies will structure their services in such a way as to make it easy for the government to spy on Americans in the future. The fact that Americans would ultimately end up paying the bill—whether through increased service charges or through tax increases—only adds insult to injury.

But there is no compelling reason that the FBI needs to have its spying over the Internet made easier. Law enforcement can already “wiretap the Internet” using existing commercially-driven technologies. In fact, each year law enforcement makes tens of thousands of requests for business records and other information regarding information services (online accounts and e-mail communications). Therefore, acceding to the FBI’s request would be unwise, inappropriate and unnecessary.

Clearly, the FBI—an agency that in recent years has been under constant investigation for alleged corruptness—is not only spying on the bad guys. This is citizen surveillance, pure and simple.

Unfortunately, many Americans are becoming conditioned to relent and sacrifice their freedoms in return for the vaporous promise of greater security. We have repeatedly been asked by our president—whose own administration is under continuing investigations—to put blind faith in the government. And many have done so with patriotic fervor. Perhaps they are more inclined to do so because we are a nation that is constantly besieged by images of war and terror alerts.

But the vital question remains: When government leaders and agencies abuse that trust, invade our privacy and subvert the U.S. Constitution—the hallmark of freedom—should we believe them anymore?

[JesterKing]

It is a saddening and perhaps even sickening thing... pretty darn close to marshall law, but lets say it prevents a terrorist act. Lets say 2 terrorists wo were planning to blow up a school bus were caught, all becaues of the patriot act. 50 odd children (and a bus driver) now live to a ripe old age because of it. Would you think that makes it worth while? Yes freedoms have been violated, yes it is wrong and injust, do you have a better plan? Do you honestly believe the government is doing all of this to deprive us of freedom? or do you think that they could, just maybe, be doing it with best interests at heart?

[VonDondu]

[QUOTE=Scayde]
The Bush Administration appears to be fighting two wars. The first is the so-called war on terrorism...[/QUOTE]
Actually, they call it the "war on terror". I'm not saying it makes any sense, mind you (it sounds self-contradictory, since war causes more terror, not less), but that's what they call it.

[Xandax]

[QUOTE=JesterKing]It is a saddening and perhaps even sickening thing... pretty darn close to marshall law, but lets say it prevents a terrorist act. Lets say 2 terrorists wo were planning to blow up a school bus were caught, all becaues of the patriot act. 50 odd children (and a bus driver) now live to a ripe old age because of it. Would you think that makes it worth while? Yes freedoms have been violated, yes it is wrong and injust, do you have a better plan? Do you honestly believe the government is doing all of this to deprive us of freedom? or do you think that they could, just maybe, be doing it with best interests at heart?[/QUOTE]

I agree to an extend with you.

But the big (ver big) problem is that this behavior/acts is just what the terrorists wants.
Each time the Homeland Security issues a threat where they don't know when, they don't know how and they don't know where - the terrorists has one a battle.
Each time "they" take away some of the freedom of people (for instance the right to protests), the terrorists has won a battle.

When the homeland security offices issues another threat, where they basically don't know when, how or where (as they have done a few time, latest in another thread I made) .... who do you think is most pleased? Terrorists, because they are simply feeding more fear into the public.

The paradox is that to guard freedom, one has to limit freedom - but when does it go from guarding freedom to hurting freedom, and whom can act when it is to late?
Freedom of speech and rights to protests are fundamental rights in a free society, and they are becoming more limited.

[VonDondu]

[QUOTE=Xandax]The paradox is that to guard freedom, one has to limit freedom...[/QUOTE]
But on the other hand, you don't have to guard freedom in order to limit freedom. And if you're not guarding freedom, you can still claim that you are, and lots of people will actually believe you.

[Chanak]

Here are a few quotes from some men who lived in 18th century America, commonly referred to as the "Founding Fathers."

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." - Patrick Henry

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." - Thomas Jefferson

"In free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns." - Benjamin Franklin

When our liberty is prescribed, constrained, and defined to us by laws, it is thus violated. The only acceptable restraints placed upon the rights of the individual in America was the consideration of the rights of others. Thomas Jefferson believed, in the end, that morality was the true governor of the American nation, and that power rested in the people, not in the government they chose, whatever that might be.

Each of the men I quoted above fervently believed a sure sign of emerging tyranny was the oppression of individual rights. It was perhaps the most sacred instituition to them, as can be evidenced by a perusal of their writings. I believe this as well. I feel this is the true heart of America...and the further we allow our freedoms and liberty to be violated by our government, in whatever name or cause is touted at the time, the less we can call ourselves Americans with good conscience.

Nothing is perfect or flawless, for there will always be wrongs to address, and injustices to be corrected. I am impressed by the fact that while the "Founding Fathers" were all very much Christians, they nevertheless possessed a vision that in many ways transcended their own time and upbringing, and embraced something which touches all of the human experience. They each felt - so strongly that they risked their lives and fortunes to secure it from a major colonial power - that a people should not be subject to tyranny of any form. Granted, this was a seed they planted when America was born from the original British thirteen colonies, for there was much to be done to address the evils of society inherited from that day and age (I speak of slavery here in particular). In reading Jefferson's writings, however, I am struck by his contention that given time, a moral people will address the wrongs in their society. This has rang true over time.

When I think of America, I think of a nation that accepted the dregs and outcasts of the world at large, all drawn here by their own reasons and dreams. Perhaps it was to practice their religion without being arrested by the agents of government. Economic liberty brought many here as well. There was a vast frontier in the continental United States to be settled, and opportunities were limitless for those who seized the day and worked hard. Despite the hardships endured, prejudices encountered, or even pressures exerted by society, their perseverance made America into a world power, and a model of human rights.

That was America in an age now past. When you think of America now, what comes to mind? Opportunities? Freedom? The chance to persue your dreams unfettered by the rule of law? To live where you want to live, and go where you wish to go, when you care to? The right to assemble peacably without encountering agents of the government opposed to you, because you disagree with the policies and/or actions of said government? If the answer to any of these questions is no, then something is terribly wrong. America was not founded to be the safest nation on earth...nor was it founded to spread it's style of government everywhere else, on foreign soils, by arms or coercion. Instead, America was founded as a land of liberty, free of the tyranny that has plagued humankind since time immemorial. The moral conscience of Americans has, from time to time, drawn us into the struggle against tyranny in other lands, such as our alliance with France and Britain in two world wars...and our pact with free Europe against the menace posed to them by the former Soviet Union. Beyond this, something was lost...

[VonDondu]

I once knew a law professor who said, "It's not a Bill of Rights; it's a Bill of Wrongs." The first ten Amendments to the Constitution do not spell out the rights of individuals; they forbid the government from violating citizens' rights. It's amazing how many people don't understand this. A lot of people seem to think that if the Constitution doesn't mention a particular right, that means that people don't have it. They need to read the ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The tenth Amendment clearly states that the federal government does not have any power not expressly given to it by the Constitution:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Of course, it's obvious that a lot of people who have sworn to uphold the Constitution (a big ceremony in January 2001 springs to mind) have never actually read the Constitution.

[Chanak]

@Von: That's the way I always viewed the Constitution...it was purposefully designed to limit the power, size, and scope of government because the framers were painfully aware that no matter the form of government, tyranny was only a few breaths away.

Without limits, government will always grow unchecked, and instead of serving the people, the people serve it...and we know that nothing it gains will ever be surrendered.

[fable]

Problem is, the US Constitution can be interpreted and reinterpreted anyway a group of lawyers wish; and since Lincoln took the first step to "adjust its liberties" back in the Civil War, both presidents and various lower level officials have used the powers of office to override personal liberties during any war, real or artificial. Earl Warren, for example, used his position as California Attorney General during WWII to imprison roughly 120,000 Japanese Americans, nearly two-thirds of whom were American citizens of Japanese descent, in makeshift prisons. No justification by law was necessary. War provided its own logic.

The problem with the new laws and the huge, burgeoning bureaucracy (from the NeoCon scam artists who were always screaming about needing "less government," but always increasing its size) to restrict privacy is that by redefiniing a condition of war to exist when no war does, these conditions can in effect be continued forever. Lincoln's abolition of the writ of habeus corpus drew gasps from the Supreme Court, but it was over and done when the war was officially closed. There is no war to close, now, just an enormous, expensive publicity stunt designed to facilitate attacks on nations-of-choice. Any abrogation of any US law condoned solely for use in wartime can be invoked for the foreseeable future. Against anybody. As long as a public official, even an unelected one, decides you represent a threat.

[FireLighter]

Another thing about the constitution (kinda) doesnt it say that taxes are to be implemented in war time only? I think I've heard that from somewhere, or read about it... But taxes are only legal during war time crisis... I'm pretty sure it says it right there in the constitution so a lot of people are paying taxes for no reason, granted it is funding a lot of necessary things, and un-necessary...Input would be nice about if this is true or I heard wrong.

[Bloodstalker]

Article 1 Section 8 states:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

So Congress is fully within it's constitutional rights to set taxes. However, I do believe that income tax itself was originally intended to be a temporary institution that we just never got rid of. Don't have the specifics on that though

[FireLighter]

K, Thanks BS (yahoooooooooo 200 posts )

[Bloodstalker]

Just to clarify, I looked it up (I'm pretty bored) and heres what I found on the income tax thing.

It was originally instituted in the Civil War to pay for war cost, then was repealed ten years later. It was revived by Congress in 1894, and struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Later, the 16th amendment gave Congress the right to tax on a persons income.

As I said, I was bored.

[VonDondu]

I'm glad to see that someone has read the Constitution before offering an opinion about what the Constitution says.

Here's where my own knowledge gets a bit fuzzy. I'm not sure how many states ratified the 16th Amendment (authorizing income taxes), and I think there has been some controversy (not just among the nutcases out there) about whether the federal income tax is constitutional (it wouldn't be if the amendment wasn't properly ratified). If you want to make that your next research project, be my guest.

[fable]

Just remember, while the vast majority of Americans have been told for ages that it has mythic qualities, the politicians who have told them so know the Constitution is a legal framework that can be 1) amended or 2) simply reinterpreted to mean almost anything. During the mid 19th century, the Constitution wasn't generally used by abolitionists to present a case favorable to freeing slaves--it was considered irrelevant to the subject. Nor did the Constitution seem to have anything to say about women getting the right to vote. Now, it is seen as prohibiting both slavery and voter discrimination according to sex. Reinterpretation is simple. Arguing that "the Constitution doesn't include this" has about as much weight with federal lawyers as all the other arguments we have up here.

[Chanak]

@fable: Hence my feeling that it takes a moral person (people) who has vision in order to make anything work. Those who are immoral (or amoral) can have a field day when given the opportunity. I adopt the stance that restraint is the only realistic way to prevent serious damage. It used to be that Supreme Court Justices were very hesitant about making rulings, since they often had an imapct upon the Constitution.

I suppose I look at it another way as well. We're all doomed anyway. Really, you just can't honestly expect even 10% of politicians to have vision beyond their own careers and advancement. That's the cost of corproate America. Get ahead. It seems depressingly linked to power in Washington as well.

[fable]

[QUOTE=Chanak]I suppose I look at it another way as well. We're all doomed anyway. Really, you just can't honestly expect even 10% of politicians to have vision beyond their own careers and advancement. That's the cost of corproate America. Get ahead. It seems depressingly linked to power in Washington as well. [/QUOTE]

And not just Washington--remember, Dubya ruled Texas, a very strong political base. But with respect, this is a problem that came in with the NeoCons in the Reagan administration, though it also showed up earlier in the Eisenhower years. The reason I bring up Reagan is that several of the people who were involved in both sides of the link back then are once again powerbrokers in Washington. Reagan gave them more than a taste of it, and Dubya has let them have free reign.

Is there anything wrong with corporations involved in government? Not when there's oversight. But Cheney has repeatedly refused to discuss the meetings he had with his old firm of Haliburton (which he once ran) beyond closed doors for years leading up to the Iraqi Invasion, and of course now Haliburton has both the lion's share of oil reward contracts from Iraq, and is under investigation for charging services that it never performed. In fact, tonight I heard that they've been charged again, similarly, in line with some other oil deals in the MidEast.

And Cheney's not the only one. I can't find it now (more's the pity) but there was a breakdown and analysis of Dubya's high-end team in terms of their connection to *specific* fossil fuel corporations, and the benefits those corporations derived from Iraq. There appeared to be a direct link in every case. Far from coming away empty-handed, each corporation received significant benefits that separated it from others in the field. But how do you prove such things, if the people potentially involved in abusing power are the smartest, richest lawyers in the business, with all the power at their disposal? What a fine example to set young citizens: "Steal what you can, crawl to the top, make backroom deals and others will admire you." Something about what government is supposed to be has gotten lost, there. Jefferson and Hamilton were often at odds on the nature of the beast, but I'm sure (based on their writings and actions) both of them would have been horrified at the people leading most governments, including our own, today.

[Scayde]

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." - Thomas Jefferson
...

I really like that...I might make it my new siggie

I am impressed by the fact that while the "Founding Fathers" were all very much Christians, they nevertheless possessed a vision that in many ways transcended their own time and upbringing, and embraced something which touches all of the human experience.

Not exaclty....many of the founders we not Christian, but Diests, which was very popular among the educated classes in France. It was rather fashionable, like being a 'New Ager' today.




As for me, to answer the questions posed here, I would choose freedom over safety anyday.

[fable]

Not exaclty....many of the founders we not Christian, but Diests, which was very popular among the educated classes in France. It was rather fashionable, like being a 'New Ager' today.

Very true. Franklin and Jefferson in particular were notable Deists, as well as Masons (in the old sense of the word, when Masonry was banned in the Austro-Hungarian Empire because it was considered a revolutionary organization). Jefferson produced a bible that complete removed all references to any miracles by JC, and contained only advice and maxims. Washington, Madison, Monroe and others were also Deists, though to a lesser extent, and probably Christian Deists. Both the Adams, Samuel and John, were Christians, but of the Unitarian persuasion as it was, then: not like today's, but nonconformist Christians who disliked ritual.

[JesterKing]

Hmmm... Im not exactly sure I would want to stop federal taxes, thats where our country gets money. YES it is a pain in the neck, but if our countries treasury was kaput, we would all be in the lurch wouldnt we? I cant quote whether it is constitutional or not, but think what terrorists could do to our country if we didnt have a dime to spend on defense... or anyone else for that matter. times have changed since the constitution. we are no longer a coastline country of 30 towns with comparitively minor needs from our government.

Religion: That was probably just another reason for the freedom of religion thing in the constitution... the founding fathers didnt want to be kicked out once it was all said and done. funny how the presidents are all listed as christian though...