Posted on 11/25/2002 11:18:53 AM PST by winner45
Edited on 04/14/2004 10:05:39 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Nov. 24, 2002 Orange County Register Column: John Poindexter may be right for the job of collecting data on U.S. citizens. But is the job - and other post-9/11 government actions - right for a free society?
Senior fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.
(Excerpt) Read more at 2.ocregister.com ...
In other words: "Self-governance is your Enemy". Thanks, but no thanks.
HSA roadkilled TIPS - Section 880.
Monitoring attorney-client communications: Attorney General John Ashcroft, armed only with "reasonable suspicion" that a communication would "facilitate acts of terrorism," invented Justice Department authority to monitor talks between detainees and their lawyers, without a court order, despite constitutional guarantees of an unimpeded right to counsel.
Uh, there were concrete allegations that the suspects in the 1994 WTC bombing were passing information through their lawyers. If you are going to infringe on anyone's rights, it seems to me that infringing upon Middle-East nationals who are suspected of terrorism is a reasonable place to start.
The silence of the Libertarians in condemning this anarcho-nonsense is deafening.
Can't speak for anyone else, but I just reflexively avoid any thread where certain people pop up. I can only tolerate so much unhinged ranting for any given day... See ya 'round!
In other words: "Self-governance is your Enemy". Thanks, but no thanks.
CJ, you're one of a very special group: people capable of confusing themselves with the State. I hate to disillusion you, but you're not the State. I know I'm not. I would never have decided to tax or regulate myself this way.
"Self-governance" is a badly constructed phrase. Everyone governs -- i.e., restrains --himself to some extent, even under the most thoroughgoing totalitarianism. But except under conditions of absolute anarchy, no one is self-governing in the political sense, regardless of the form of the government he must abide. Not even in a pure democracy. Most especially in a pure democracy. That's about 95% of the argument for Constitutionalism.
Oops, did I say the wrong thing? CJ's no fan of the Constitution. I didn't intend to upset him.
The burgeoning security apparatus does have troubling aspects, though not everything described in the above article is necessarily pernicious. Given the legislative majorities involved, we have to hope the courts circumscribe the executive's powers in accordance with the Constitutional design.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
Faces usually come with mouths.
There is a much more effective way - contact your congresscritters and Senators and work to have the more obnoxious provisions lifted. This article mentions TIPS - but TIPS was killed, not by the courts, but by Section 880 - of the Homeland Security Act.
Contrary to popular belief, the legislative process still works from time to time, especially when a lot of citizens get involved.
Oh, subtle!
For Freepers not in the know, Billy Budd's last (and only) words in Melville's story are "God bless Captain urk!"
As Pogo said: "Yep son, we have met the enemy and he is us." --Boot Hill
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.