Monitor Thy Neighbor (Commentary by Congressman Ron Paul)

Ron Paul via MEW ^ | 07.23.02 | Ron Paul

[Registered]

Monitor Thy Neighbor

Publisher: Middle East News Press Release Network

By: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

Posted: 2002-07-23

Opposition to the Patriot Act, legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President last year, is growing. Americans are beginning to understand that many precious liberties have been put in jeopardy by the government's rush to enact new laws in the wake of September 11th. Federal law enforcement agencies now have broad authority to conduct secret, warrantless searches of homes; monitor phone and internet activity; access financial records; and undertake large-scale tracking of American citizens through huge databases. We're told this is necessary to fight the unending war on terror, but in truth the federal government has been seeking these powers for years. September 11th simply provided an excuse to accelerate the process and convince all of us to relinquish more and more of our privacy to the federal government.

Now the Justice department wants to extend the new investigative powers to private citizens. It recently unveiled Operation TIPS – Terrorism Information and Prevention System – as part of President Bush's Citizen Corps initiative. The goal is to enlist thousands or even millions of Americans to act as spies for the government, reporting suspicious activity to officials using a handy toll-free hotline. The Justice department especially hopes to enlist mailmen, delivery drivers, plumbers, gas-meter readers, and the like, as they have access to private homes and businesses in their daily work. As usual, the war on terror is offered as justification for this proposal.

This almost might be funny if it were not real. Imagine the rampant abuses possible with a national spy program. Busybodies across the country will clamor to join the effort and act as self-appointed neighborhood vigilantes. Unscrupulous individuals of every stripe will abuse the program by snitching on ex-spouses, personal enemies, and racial groups they don't like. Bickering neighbors will enjoy calling in to report unkempt lawns and barking dogs as sure signs of nefarious activity. I certainly hope the Justice department employs some very patient people to field the flood of useless calls.

If a government-sponsored snitch program sounds pretty bad to you, you're not alone. Some commentators draw parallels between Operation TIPS and the citizen informants of the former East German Stasi secret police. Of course, suggesting the obvious – that citizen spy programs are incompatible with a free society – invites denunciations and sharp reminders that "we're at war." Remember, however, that wars have been used throughout modern history to justify rapid expansion of state power at the expense of personal liberty. We cannot remain free if we allow the endless, undeclared war on terror to serve as an excuse for giving up every last vestige of our privacy.

I applaud Congressman Dick Armey for adding a provision to the homeland security bill that would prohibit the Justice department from implementing the TIPS program. His opposition brings needed public attention to this terrible idea. But even if Congress supports him, there is no guarantee another informant proposal will not surface soon thereafter. Congressional oversight of administrative agencies (consider the Treasury department and its renegade IRS) is nonexistent. The Justice department almost certainly will seek another way to implement the program, with or without congressional approval.

Ultimately, we have to ask ourselves what kind of society we hope to leave our children and grandchildren. A civilized and free society would not be discussing, much less seriously debating, any proposal to enlist private citizens to act as federal neighborhood snitches.


Ron Paul, M.D., represents the 14th Congressional District of Texas in the United States House of Representatives.

[Reagan Man]

>>>... spook...

You're as lost in the ozone as Ron Paul is.

[rdb3]

I knew of no other definition of the term. So if someone said, "You're a neo-con, rdb3!" I'd reply, "Thank you! And I'm in good company." That means by this definition, Ronald Reagan was a "neo-con." And I don't mind one bit being associated with him.

[meanspirit77]

Ron Paul, M.D., represents the 14th Congressional District of Texas in the United States House of Representatives.

This speaks well of the citizens in that district. What area of Texas does the 14th cover? Thanks.

[Sir Gawain]

You offered no rebuttal to the article. You did use a nice Carville tactic though.

[Reagan Man]

>>>You didn't address anything specific...

I addressed it and undressed it! Ron Paul is pissed off at the world and so are you. A libertarian posing as a Republican tells it all. When you return from the outer limits of the twilight zone, look me up. Otherwise rant on at your own pleasure.

[Registered]

Again, more unspecifics and silly rants. You can't expect us to take you seriously if you aren't going to address what you specifically disagree with Paul on.

[Born in a Rage]

So if in my job as sysadmin, I come across files and email that looks like terrorists actually planning something and then actually report it I am now no better than a Stasi snitch.

The TIPS program is more than a person reporting something unusual that they may come across and see as linked to terrorism. It is something that people actually sign up for beforehand. What was wrong with people just reporting any unusual activity/information when they came across it? Why have people sign up before the fact? What exactly would they be reporting....if my husband and I are having a conversation about something and it is against some sort of Bush war on terror policy that he has, and the cableman hears us and he is a member of the TIPS program, is that reportable? It's just strange. I just don't see the purpose of the program. What does it have that we don't already have?

[RightWhale]

You're right. Neighbors used to know each other and went to church together and all. Now some neighborhoods are all hermits. Makes one imagine that everyone is in the black market dealing in who knows what.

[Sir Gawain]

look me up.

Why would we want to do that?

[FreeTally]

Good God. Reaganman shows up to bash Republicans now. I think you hit it right on the button as to his "employment". And to think my tax money is taken to give me a headache with.

[Reagan Man]

I don't ever expect to be taken seriously by the likes of you. You fringe extremists have nothing in common with gravitas. Try again loser!

[Registered]

Your attempts at humor are working. BWAHAHAHAHAHhahahahah.

[dcwusmc]

Ron Paul/Chuck Baldwin BIG BUMP!

[steve50]

The term the neocons prefer for the old republican party members is "hard right" now, read your talking points.

[Consort]

What was wrong with people just reporting any unusual activity/information when they came across it?

How are we going to make that happen when so many of us "just don't want to get involved"? How do we change that mindset? If TIPS is too extreme in one direction, then the status quo is too extreme in the other direction.

[L_Von_Mises]

Well, let me say this. Since "neo-con" is defined as having moved from liberal to conservative, I wear that label as a badge of honor.

Neo-con does not mean someone who switched from liberal to conservative. It was a term created in the 60s to describe those from the left that became disenchanted with the new left's drift to the hard left. They were still basically liberals, just not on the hard left. Irving Kristol (Bill Kristol's father) is one person who immediately comes to mind when I think of neo-cons and is considered the father of the neo-con movement.

From the New American:

Neo-conservatism as a distinct identity began to appear in the late 1960s, when several Establishment liberals and leftists started expressing concern about the radical direction their ideological colleagues were taking over issues such as the Vietnam War, American foreign policy in general, and many domestic matters. The leaders of what soon came to be known as "neo-conservatism" regarded themselves as "liberal anti-communists" who favored a policy of containment in Vietnam and who were repelled by the pro-communist apologetics voiced by the New Left. They were also alarmed by what they regarded as the "isolationism" expressed by the New Left as well as by the favor the New Left harbored for many anti-American, anti-Western Third World movements (which often enjoyed Soviet support) such as the Palestine Liberation Organization, the African National Congress, and the Nicaraguan Sandinistas.

Despite their dislike of the New Left, their anti-communism, and their concern about destructive cultural and moral trends, the neo-conservatives for the most part never quite managed to break completely with many of the underlying liberal assumptions. In one of the earliest exchanges between neo-conservatives and paleo-conservatives in National Review in 1972, the late James Burnham, himself a former Trotskyite communist who had evolved toward genuine conservatism, remarked that while the intellectuals who espoused neo-conservatism might have broken formally with "liberal doctrine," they nevertheless retained in their thinking "what might be called the emotional gestalt of liberalism, the liberal sensitivity and temperament." In other words, even though neo-conservatives no longer consciously believed in many liberal ideas, they still showed the habits of thought and the emotional reactions to those ideas.

Thus, while neo-conservatives despised the New Left, they continued to embrace an unexamined liberal faith in the big government created by liberals from Woodrow Wilson through Franklin Roosevelt to John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. Several of them - such as Ben Wattenberg, Elliott Abrams, and Penn Kemble - came out of the ranks of democratic socialism and its commitment to organized labor. Even though they criticized various aspects of the welfare state, they continued to believe a welfare state was both legitimate and inevitable. Irving Kristol himself writes in his Reflections of a Neo-Conservative that "a conservative welfare state … is perfectly consistent with the neo-conservative perspective."

Link here

Another interesting read here that was posted on FR.

The conservatives are divided, primarily along the lines of paleo-conservatives and neo-conservatives. There is a distinct difference between the two, with the neo-cons being to the left of the paleos on the political spectrum. Unfortunately, just like the term "liberal", some confusion regarding what the term means muddies up the debate. Personally, I refer to myself as more of a classical liberal along the lines of John Locke, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman etc. than a conservative, paleo, neo, or otherwise.

[Jefferson Adams]

Absolutely excellent, as usual, from Ron Paul.

[rdb3]

Personally, I refer to myself as more of a classical liberal along the lines of John Locke, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman etc. than a conservative, paleo, neo, or otherwise.

So do I (radically, even). True liberalism has nothing to do with the Left. In fact, when we get right to the heart of the matter, the Constitution itself is a "liberal" document.

Now watch how that statement will be crucified.

[Jefferson Adams]

So if in my job as sysadmin, I come across files and email that looks like terrorists actually planning something and then actually report it I am now no better than a Stasi snitch.

So if I find out someone is illegally here from the Middle East and I report it, I am now a Stasi snitch.

What would prevent you from doing that NOW, without a TIPS organization? We don't need MORE federal government, we need less.

[ExpandNATO]

Actually, the proper term for old style Republican is RINO.