Monday, June 21, 2004

May I See Your Papers Please?

The 5th amendment takes a heavy blow. Well, I guess living in a country where our lawmakers can initiate something like the PATRIOT Act to deal with us common rabble, but then not obey the law themselves, it's to be expected.

And just remember - as long as you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to fear... Unless you look like you're the type who would do something wrong.
Posted by at

10 comments:

Jeffrey Hill said...

I'm sure the trains headed for the frozen gulags will be packed.

9:37 PM
Steve said...

Ah... it's nice to see some insightful and intelligent commentary wherein the ideas are examined critically and objectively. Not at all like the argument ad absurdim/ ad hominem attacks so often used by right wing mouthpieces.

So please Jeff, tell me why such things as the PATRIOT act, and Ashcroft acting like the law applies to everyone but himself and the executive branch are good for the country, and are helping us win the war on terror? Please, I'd really like to know. You supply frequent justification as to why us waging pre-emptive war on people "who hate us" is defensible and somehow noble. Now how about doing the same for the fact that the documents that the principles of this country are based on are being dismantled, instead of brushing off observations of such as paranoid ravings?

Be better than Anne Coulter, Jeff. I know you're capable of such things.

9:19 AM
Jeffrey Hill said...

I simply don’t see how the PATRIOT Act has turned our justice department into an instant Gestapo. I’d rather our law enforcement have better tools to combat terrorism than have their hands unnecessarily tied. Sure, the PATRIOT Act might be abused. What law isn’t abused? Even with the PATRIOT Act in use I can’t think of a single nation that enjoys more freedoms than the U.S. From my understanding, most of the provisions in it are things that European countries have had for years now, which is not to suggest that our current freedom will be reduced to that of old Europe. I believe terrorism is a bigger threat to our civil liberties than our government. And this is coming from a kid who checked out Mein Kampf about three times in high-school. I’ve nothing to hide. And if a cop asks me who I am, I’ll tell him…politely.

Ultimately, the people control the course of the PATRIOT Act. Since it has the sunset clause, congress has to renew it until it is no longer needed.

1:02 PM
Jeffrey Hill said...

Slavery was at the root of every major political problem prior to the Civil War – from the passing of the constitution to our westward expansion to the whole north/south division. The Republican party was started as the abolitionist party. It was a sickness that infested that whole scenario you described between the industrial north and the agrarian south. The existence of slavery in the south stunted their economy and put them at a major disadvantage to the north. Whatever the political talk at the time was – whether it was states’ rights or the burden of import duties – the reason for the mess was always slavery. Even the most hardened southern apologist can’t honestly separate slavery from the other issues.

But I wouldn’t liken slavery to Saddam’s WMD. I would liken it to his oppression of the Iraqis. And not just the oppression of minorities – as you pointed out – but the oppression of the majority, too. So long as he ran a government that did not represent the people and was not accountable to the people, he was a threat to us and his neighbors.

As for nukes: don’t kid yourself. Because we haven’t found WMD stockpiles doesn’t mean he didn’t have programs. It also doesn’t mean that those unaccounted weapons never existed. He had a nuke program that was apparently mothballed. Fine. But we weren’t sure it was mothballed prior to the invasion – and prior assessments of his nuclear programs before the ’91 war and underestimated his capability. If he was still in power & the UN inspectors were on their goose chase because we still had troops amassed in Qatar, draining our pocket book to the delight of the French – and there was a nuke attack, he’d still be a suspect. He no longer is. And that’s bad for Kim Jong Il.

3:25 PM
Jeffrey Hill said...

oops! typo. I meant to say: and prior assessments of his nuclear programs before the ’91 war HAD underestimated his capability.

4:16 PM
Steve said...

"What laws aren't abused?" Categorical Error. We aren't talking about all laws and the abuse thereof - we are talking about the PATRIOT act and it's potential for abuse, in accord with the behavior of those (supposedly) elected to uphold the laws for our greater good.
Yes, in wartime - there is historically a curtailment of Civil Liberties, and these acts have been overextended and in some cases outright abused. Hoover's COINTELPRO comes to mind.

However - each of these were in one way or another removed, thanks to built in limitations. In the case of PATRIOT this is being met with continued resistance. Orrin Hatch tried to remove the sunset clauses in 2003, and noises have been made to do the same again.
Also, in each of these previous periods - the administration never made indications that it considered itself to be above the laws that it was put in place to uphold, ala Ashcroft's refusal to produce the torture memo last week.

(Lateral thinking engage!) COINTELPRO could be seen as being a remarkably similiar situation. Hoover used the FBI and COINTELPRO to keep track of people that he felt were a threat to HIS idea of America. So it could be argued that Hoover (like the Neocons today) used the mechanisms of government to impose his views on the country.
To argue ad hominem for a moment: Unlike Ashcroft, at least he was a closet drag queen and therefore had a little bit of interesting weirdness. Ashcroft, was beat by a DEAD MAN in the last election he ran in. If a state as conservative as Missouri would rather have a corpse as an elected official than Ashcroft, it's no wonder he could only get political office by appointment.

Back to my argument. If the government is not as great a threat as the terrorists, could you explain the illegal detention of American protestors in New York previous to the beginning of the war? (unfortunately, I am unable to find the link) Along with the previously hyper covered refusal to comply to the law... If the parallel beween Hoover and Ashcroft (preference of Formalwear notwithstanding) could be extended. How soon before popular anti-war leaders are being contacted by the AG's office with threats of dirty laundry being aired if they don't stop criticizing the government? Already PATRIOT has been misused to ruin the life of a Foreign National from one of our allies.

Finally, the wording of a law is critical to how it is enforced or enacted. When the American Bar Association presents criticism of the wording of the document, warning of the potential for abuse, this indicates that the act itself is greatly flawed.

A little gedankenspielen:

According to The American Heritage Dictionary:
Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


Following your proposal of Terrorism being a greater threat to our civil liberties and the subsequent decision of our government to remove said liberties in the name of fighting terrorism, I would say as was popular a year ago "Then the terrorists have already won."

Quote time:
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." - Benjamin franklin

"we have met the enemy... and he am us" - Walt Kelly.

10:34 PM
Steve said...

Fun with the PATRIOT Act"...but the oppression of the majority, too. So long as he ran a government that did not represent the people and was not accountable to the people, he was a threat to us and his neighbors."

So non-accountablility to the people is indicative of a threatening and hostile government... and this is different from Ashcroft refusing to present evidence to the 9-11 commission, or Cheney refusing to disclose the membership of his "energy commission" to us, the people they represent, how?

11:13 PM
Jeffrey Hill said...

“Unlike Ashcroft, at least he [Hoover] was a closet drag queen and therefore had a little bit of interesting weirdness.” Hey, to each his own.

“Ashcroft, was beat by a DEAD MAN in the last election he ran in.” A humiliating defeat, I’m sure. But to his credit, despite losing an election to a dead man’s wife, Ashcroft did something that I’ve seen few politicians in questionable races do – he ceded victory without any objections. Of course, the GOP went after that seat with a vengeance two years later, against a still newly widowed senator, but that’s politics.

“If the government is not as great a threat as the terrorists, could you explain the illegal detention of American protestors in New York previous to the beginning of the war?” You’ll have to explain that. I’m not sure of those arrests. Besides, I’m more concerned about the 3,000 that died in the attacks.

"So non-accountablility to the people is indicative of a threatening and hostile government... and this is different from Ashcroft refusing to present evidence to the 9-11 commission, or Cheney refusing to disclose the membership of his "energy commission" to us, the people they represent, how?" It's very different. Don’t confuse conflict of procedure with accountability. Beyond checks and balances (which still work despite your worst fears about Bush), the people offer the ultimate accountability. Granted, if Bush loses I’ll think it’ll be a mistake by the American people. I’m not sure if you believed whether or not Hussein got a 100% vote from the Iraqi people or not – but I’ll assert that the people factored little in Saddam’s rule. The difference can be partly distinguished by the mass graves in Iraq. And N. Korea. And Iran. And Syria.

8:58 AM
Steve said...

Another categorical error. People being detained for protesting our invasion of Iraq have little to do with those killed in the WTC on 9-11. One has brought about the other, but what risk is there in someone saying "I'm opposed to an action that I feel is wrong that the government is performing in my name"? Explain logically and with as little reliance on rhetoric and ideology as possible how exercising the 1st amendment right to free speech by way of expressing dissent with governmental action is "aiding terrorism" as has been said by members of the administration numerous times?

To play armchair psychologist for a moment: How much of the right's justification of Iraq and future military action is based on histrionics and emotion (specifically a need for vengance) as opposed to a logical desire to Protect the interests of America? This constant harping that "No Really! Iraq was in league with Al-Qaeda!" starts to sound like a case of "methinks the man doth protest too much".

Linkage update: I am still trying to track down the specific story from New York (it was a political journalist's blog account of being jailed but not charged at a protest rally)

But, the nice folks at the Progressive have been keeping a running tab on those who are being harassed for exercising their right to dissent.
The New McCarthyism

10:37 AM
Jeffrey Hill said...

I’m still not sure what the significance is of the arrested protesters. Were they in federal custody? Was the justice department going after them? Were they arrested for simply protesting or were they infringing on someone else’s rights? Does it have anything to do with Bush (I mean, aside for any Bush=[insert ridiculous comparison here] apparel they probably had on)? Also, going back to your previous comments, was the court decision about providing your name to the police something that Bush did? As far as I know, he is not a Supreme court chief justice. He hasn’t even appointed one.

As far as protests are concerned: let them happen. Bush hasn’t urged any protests to stop. But to answer your question: anything that seeks to demoralize or cripple our efforts to fight the terrorist can potentially aid the terrorists. If you doubt that, simply ask a terrorist in one of his or her more honest moments. Why would the protesters protest if they weren’t seeking to undermine the war effort and effect change? As often as you have blamed US policy for causing some of our current problems (not always incorrectly, I might add), surely you should recognize that even the most well intentioned efforts of a protester could have adverse effects to government policy. That’s not a reason to crack down on protesters, but a simple observation.

I don’t believe the invasion of Iraq is meant to avenge 9/11. That might be an emotional side effect. I believe the reasons we went to Iraq is that the administration looked at the state of the region and determined that the status quo was not acceptable & it needed to be changed. Saddam was unfortunate enough to be the easiest regime to remove since he was effectively outside the community of nations. In order to change the region, he had to go first.

Finally, the reason the pro-war types keep harping on the al Qaeda-Saddam connection is because the anti-war types refuse to accept it. We are not protesting at all; we’re asserting.

2:29 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)