You must be living in a cave. The Feds have been stripping us of our rights for decades. It's called incrementalism and they have mastered it. It's easy to boil a frog.
Posted on 11/27/2001 6:58:59 AM PST by Zviadist
It's easy for elected officials in Washington to tell the American people that the government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism. Such assurances inevitably are followed by proposals either to restrict the constitutional liberties of the American people or spend vast sums from the federal treasury. The history of the 20th century shows that the Constitution is violated most often by Congress during times of crisis; accordingly, most of our worst unconstitutional agencies and programs began during the two world wars and the Depression.
Ironically, the Constitution itself was conceived in a time of great crisis. The founders intended its provision to place inviolable restrictions on what the federal government could do even in times of great distress. America must guard against current calls for government to violate the Constitution- break the law- in the name of law enforcement.
The"anti-terrorism" legislation recently passed by Congress demonstrates how well-meaning politicians make shortsighted mistakes in a rush to respond to a crisis. Most of its provisions were never carefully studied by Congress, nor was sufficient time taken to debate the bill despite its importance. No testimony was heard from privacy experts or others from fields outside of law enforcement. Normal congressional committee and hearing processes were suspended. In fact, the final version of the bill was not made available to members before the vote! These political games should not be tolerated by the American public, especially when precious freedoms are at stake.
Almost all of the new laws focus on American citizens rather than potential foreign terrorists. For example, the definition of "terrorism" for federal criminal purposes has been greatly expanded; you now may be considered a terrorist if you belong to a pro-constitution group, a citizens militia, or various pro-life organizations. Legitimate protest against the government could place you (and tens of thousands of other Americans) under federal surveillance. Similarly, your internet use can be monitored without your knowledge, and your internet provider can be forced to hand over user information to law enforcement without a warrant or subpoena.
The bill also greatly expands the use of traditional surveillance tools, including wiretaps, search warrants, and subpoenas. Probable cause standards for these tools are relaxed or even eliminated in some circumstances; warrants become easier to obtain and can be executed without your knowledge; and wiretaps can be placed on you without a court order. In fact, the FBI and CIA now can tap phones or computers nationwide without even demonstrating that a particular phone or computer is being used by a criminal suspect.
The biggest problem with these new law enforcement powers is that they bear little relationship to fighting terrorism. Surveillance powers are greatly expanded, while checks and balances on government are greatly reduced. Most of the provisions have been sought after by domestic law enforcement agencies for years, not to fight terrorism, but rather to increase their police power over the American people. There is no evidence that our previously-held civil liberties posed a barrier to the effective tracking or prosecution of terrorists. The federal government has made no showing that it failed to detect or prevent the recent terrorist strikes because of the civil liberties that will be compromised by this new legislation.
In his speech to the joint session of Congress following the September 11th attacks, President Bush reminded all of us that the United States outlasted and defeated Soviet totalitarianism in the last century. The numerous internal problems in the former Soviet Union- its centralized economic planning and lack of free markets, its repression of human liberty, its excessive militarization- all led to its inevitable collapse. We must be vigilant to resist the rush toward ever-increasing state control of our society, so that our own government does not become a greater threat to our freedoms than any foreign terrorist.
National sovereignty means a government control over arbitrarily drawn territory because of the genetic or other inbred characteristics of some (never all) individuals. Try to have national sovereignty without a national government, then tell me how it isn't a statist construct.
Freedom, of course, exists prior to, and usually despite of, any government.
It is. But Ron Paul is the last person I would want representing my side in a debate. He has no credibility left. Everything he says is dismissed without consideration because we know he is a libertarian extremist.
When he starts demonstrating an ability to exercise mature judgement instead of automatically applying knee-jerk libertarian theology, then people might start taking him seriously.
And just what has changed?. If anyone (terrorist, whatever) wanted to kill you today, the feds could not stop it anymore than 80 years ago.
What deluded world do you live in that entitles you to a right to kill?.
I wonder how many of the passengers in those 4 hi jacked planes said as the planes crashed,
And I am certain every one of those dead persons were just clamoring for the feds to save them from death weren't they?. If anything, the federal government and it's million alphabet agencies totally failed each and everyone of the people who died on 9/11.
You are one complete fool if you really believe the federal government cares one iota you. The federal government only cares about itself and it's self perpetuation.
---max
Yep.
People, the Great American Experiment, started 225 years ago, is basically over. It was a failure because succeeding generations simply were not of the caliber, morally or intellectually, that those who founded this country were.
The only real question in my mind is "how much is it going to hurt when it all comes crashing down?" Or, perhaps more accurately, "what will it be like to live in a total police state?"
We're well on the way to finding out, and there really is no stopping it at this point. The election of "conservative" Dubya has, in fact, sped up the train. It's a pity, but truth is simply truth.
So you are suggesting then that even our Republic is statist in nature.
You must be living in a cave. The Feds have been stripping us of our rights for decades. It's called incrementalism and they have mastered it. It's easy to boil a frog.
LOL! Right, because he says we should follow the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, which was created to keep human nature in government under control. What the founders believed is now considered extremism.
R.I.P. U.S.A.
We tried to tell republican voters that this was the case back in 2000. There was no hearing it. It's not that we LIKE to be right about this kind of thing.
Well put. Yes, it is.
Yep. To all of your points.
Everything Ron Paul says stems from adherence to the Constitution and the intent of the Founders.
But because it would make you and your ilk look bad to just admit you loathe the Constitution and its principles, you dismiss Ron Paul's words in ad-homonim attacks.
It's the oldest trick in the book: If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. Typical, and utterly transparent. Don't try to sugarcoat it. Nobody's fooled.
When he starts demonstrating an ability to exercise mature judgement instead of automatically applying knee-jerk libertarian theology, then people might start taking him seriously.
Translated to plain English: "When he sells out those pesky constitutional principles and begins to 'play ball', we'll let him be our toady."
This has happened once in my lifetime. The crime was reported within minutes of it happening, the local police (much to their credit), arrested the criminal not too far away while attempting to steal someone else's property.
5 hours after the thief's arrest, he was bailed out. Both myself and my neighbor knew who the person was and we paid that person a late night visit and introduced the criminal to the undercarriage of a 1972 Ford Econoline. Problem solved.
The federal government did not protect me, did not provide for my security, did not assist me in any way. They did however consider my insurance check as income though.
As far as I am concerned the Federal goverment (aside from the Department of (perceived) Defense) is pretty much unconstitutional and about as useful (as my granddad used to say) "tit's on a tomcat".
---max
He just laughs at them, because, unlike so many of them, he has the guts to lay it all out there - telling us exactly how he feels about things. And then gets re-elected every time. Some of his cohorts sadly wish that hey had the same electorate as does Ron Paul. He is a gem!!!
He votes 100% on the Constitution. The fact that the ACLU gets it right 40% of the time is irrelevant.
I'm not a big fan of ACLU because of their selective protection of the Constitution, but they do some good work with 4th Amendment issues and some others.
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.