Those who choose to give up essential freedoms for a little temporary security shall receive neither. I think we should remember that beautiful saying.
Then the question is "what freedoms, or rather their manifestations, are essential?" If we cling to a static idea in the face of a changing dynamic, are we wise, or foolish?
If you choose to give up your rights and privacy to the government, it will not stand back and just stop there. You can fight for your freedom and get killed or let the government take it away and likely get killed a few years later.
No one is talking about "giving up your rights." What we are discussing, or at least what I think we are discussing, is the question of the level of privacy we can afford or expect as individuals while terrorist elements are using privacy as a part of their plan to destroy us. How much "privacy" is too much, and how little is not enough?
Let's say we draw a line in the sand, and instead of the judicially sanctioned, carefully drawn, and appropriate use of domestic intelligence that is part of our current defensive posture, we opt to go in the reverse direction. We revoke the Patriot Act, and disband Homeland Security, returning to a pre-attack status quo of "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil." Would this give terrorist elements the added advantage they need to operate here with impunity? Possibly so. In fact, we already know that our political and social sensitivity to those of foreign origins, our pre-existing level of privacy, and our notion that appeasement is an effective tool in maintaining our security was proven dreadfully inadequate on 9-11. While there are loud voices complaining that we have embarked on a mistaken path, those same voices offer no alternative plans to either Patriot or Homeland Security. Why? Perhaps it is because this is the only path we have, given the present circumstances.
Fact of the matter is that, without the USA PATRIOT Act, the US government had the power to stop terrorism. The 9/11 hearings lend credibility (based on testimony of ALL subjects, Bushies included) that it was policy, not power, that couldn't stop 9/11 or something similar.
With this amount of hogwash, we are getting a very clean hog.
The 9-11 investigation is a political vehicle meant to reclaim power. That's the whole idea in a nutshell. When you have long grandstanding speeches from democrats trying to get a grip on lost power while pretending to ask questions, using a book put on sale during an election written by a demoted and clearly disgruntled staff member whose private testimony does not square with his published testimony, you have a commission whose intent is questionable at best.
The reason that they are upset with Condi Rice is that they have no opportunity to lecture her publicly, and give more speeches that they hope to eventually use as sound bites. What a terrible disappointment for them.
The intent of folks like Richard Clark, Madeliane Albright, and the chorus of others who were on duty before the Bush administration moved into the White House is to make their eight years of inaction appear reasonable, as if they were doing all the right things and had the situation well in hand, and it was only some fault of the Bush administration, some lack of insight, ability, or activity that resulted in the 9-11 attack.
If you believe that, we don't have a common basis for a discussion. We might as well call in Ted Kennedy to explain how Bush concocted a war in Texas in order to benefit himself and his friends. It's sad to hear how half a century of hard drinking has destroyed Ted's mind. At least the young George Bush had the good sense to stop years ago.
The USA PATRIOT Act, however, extends the powers derived from this act to allow surveillance of US citizens based on mere suspicion (not evidence) that used to be reserved only for foreigners in the US. Do not let the Bushies tell you otherwise. Go to
www.house.gov and read the Act yourself. If you sort through all the BS, you'll find this power in the surveillance part. Just read the titles of each section and you'll find the power, along with that of the "sneak and peek" provision (Section 215). It allows the government to snoop your $hit and not tell you about it.
I hate to be the one to reveal this, but this surveillance has been going on on a small scale for a long time. 9-11 showed that the previous level of surveillance was insufficient for the purpose. Therefore, we clearly needed to increase our diligence to the level of "due."
Now we can go ahead and revoke the Patriot Act if you like, but I don't think the resulting mayhem is a good trade against whether they know which commercials I have told a friend about in my emails, or which bills I paid this month out of my checking account. I other words, I have more to gain from a "sneak and peek" as a citizen than I see as a benefit of keeping that information more secret.
The TSA attempted to take the due process away by allowing you no appeal and no access to evidence. Kinda goes against the 5th Amendment right to face one's accuser. Again, lost freedom. Thankfully, the FY2004 FAA Reauth. Bill instates an appeal process. Sad that it took Congress to reinstate this protection. The executive branch had to be overridden...Anything you have that was earned (not simply allowed you) must be taken away by due process.
I have to point out to you that due process can simply be the written law that allows them to do it, as given in the trespass example above. Congress can certainly override this idea, which is one of the reasons we have three branches of government. Now, if you can get the judicairy to stop legislating things that could never be passed by our elected representatives, then you will start to get support from me. Want to keep the 10 commandments out of a couthouse? Pass a law in congress. You and I know that can't happen, since that would violate the first amendment. If only the courts knew they had no standing in this matter, according to the founders.
Keep in mind that your right to bash anyone you so desire is a personal right that you so freely employ.
I try to avoid bashing people, only errant ideas.
The Bush Admin has made no secret that it likes to punish critics.
Every administration tries to punish critics. And critics try to punish administrations. Was this a secret to you?
It uses "national security" to back up its abuses of power.
If Congress legally gives power, is its use an "abuse?" What abuses are you talking about?
Really, the only thing protecting you from government intrusion is the Constitution. Don't be so fast to denounce it in the name of security.
These statements come with subtexts of supposition, like the reference to "abuse of power." The word "abuse" is chosen quite purposefully, and is intended to be taken at face value, as if it is a known value. Unless proven, this is only a charge, an opinion, or an impression.
So, you think someone has "denounced" the constitution. Who has done that here? No one has. It's a red herring.
So, why not ditch some of the hyperbole, the Kennedyesque subtexts, and come up with some real alternative suggestions. Anyone who does so will be the FIRST, since no one I have heard has shared a single new or improved idea. All I hear is complaints, and not a suggestion among the critics. The truth is this: many liberals DO have an alternative idea or two, but they dare not articulate those ideas, since none of them will fly with the American people. This is why the senate democrats fear appointing judges who will judge according to the law, and not see their job as a de facto legislator. This could lead to forcing liberals to bring bills before the public and having them defeated, instead of having the country ruled by federal courts who are friendly to their ideas. This is in a word, tyranny, and anyone interested in the subject of "rights" should be very interested in its defeat.
