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.
This thread should have ended after post #1, Mr Ron, Mr Paul, or whatever your name. The answer is a big YES. Absolute freedom is exchanged for security, and you Libertarians ought to know that better than anyone (or is this question really a bait?) You want security, any level at all, you get yourself a gubmint. I love anarchy and all (in theory of course) but we do exchange freedom for security, with or without military tribunals. Geez!
The government represents the citizens. How it does so can be widely varied but "governments" do not ever make decisions. Individuals do. Individuals who are employed to represent the nation's interests. What goes on inside the border of that nation is only to be determined by the citizens who make up that nation.
The idea of soverignty simply means that the people of that nation do not accept governance outside of what they consider the legitimate government of their nation. And when you violate that, you commit an act of aggression. A criminal act.
If you wish to arrest somebody in China, you need to do exactly what you would do if it was a citizen in America.
Gather the evidence, obtain a warrant (from the government in question) and if they'll allow you, execute the warrant.
If they refuse, you walk away. My advice would be to tell the American people what happened and that they will have to decide how next they want to proceed (boycotts, letters of Marque etc) but that under the constution our government has no authority to act further.
End of story.
Not. Security can't be provided. Thus such an arrangement is fraud.
Since you are obviously unfamiliar with any such quote, I'll tell you who said it. A very foolish, half-witted man (I'm sure you'll agree) by the name of Benjamin Franklin.
No you don't. If justice is served by apprehending the perpetrator in China and China refuses to accomodate justice then you do it by force. China has no rights, individuals do. Your suggestion to walk away because of an abstraction which is China is statist. Only, I notice, you are only statist when the state is foreign.
Who? A rock singer? A TV pundit? Oh, i see a self help guru! I'm sure that Benjamin Franklin farted too, and from your self congratulatory, mind reading post I would assume you think he farted deep wisdom. Incidentally, a bumpersticker is not a philosophy. I stand by what I said earlier and history and that nasty thing we call practical reality support me, while the utopian theories of the Liberians or whatever they like to call themselves, obviously disagree and contradict me. So be it! But as a principle I only debate people who can think and debate in paragraphs and avoid those who vomit slogans, quotes and bumperstickers and then run, so good night and good luck. Utopia awaits!
National Sovereignty in a Libertarian Republic would be a matter of property rights agreed on by Constitutional Contract. Not a statist construct.
All that....and you still don't get it.
What would have happened in a Nation where the Constitution was ACTUALLY followed.
Where the Bill of Rights was,once again, a sacred part of our laws??
Where the 2nd Amendment was NOT infringed upon??
Maybe the terrorists would all be dead at the hands of the passengers. Passengers carrying firearms...and defending their Nation.
Passengers who would NOT be depending on the 'good intentions' of Government.
Wow......what a world.
redrock
p.s. Take some time...and ACTUALLY read the Constitution.
Yeah, you do. The alternative is an act of aggression. A crime. The citizens of that nation cannot be held responsible for the acts of their representatives. That is your statist solution.
Turn this around. You are a small nation which has offered asylum to a political refugee from China. China wants him back. You say no and China bombs you to pieces.
China perceives itself to be in the right because it is merely going after a criminal. In your world, they are.
But as a principle I only debate people who can think and debate in paragraphs and avoid those who vomit slogans, quotes and bumperstickers and then run, so good night and good luck. Utopia awaits!
My short response was only a call on your ridiculous statement. The only vomit that needs cleaning is found in reply#149. As for my Utopian dream, It's beyond sad that you see the desire to have a Constitution that has some semblance of meaning as being Utopian. I don't ask for Utopia, I DO ask that Congress AT LEAST READ AND DEBATE a bill BEFORE passing it!! If Clinton had signed that law you and everyone else on this forum would be screaming about it. It's pointless for you to deny it.
Wow, at first I was going to try and defend the police. There are many cases, probably most cases, where they really are not capable of doing much. In this case it sounds like one of those "walkingtall" situations. What ever city you live in, you guys are really getting a raw deal. In Cedar Rapids I think the police are very good. Maybe it is because the city is just the right size at about 110K.
In my situation, the first time my truck was broken into we caught they guy and were able to ID him. He had 2 other charges on him and the combination landed him 2.5 - 5 years in jail. The second time I just found my truck without a stereo. There was nothing anyone could do. I didn't even bother telling the police.
I did learn one interesting thing. When I was chasing the guy down the street the first time I had let him get a 10 second head start. I didn't think it was legal for me to stop him. A police friend of mine said that I should have made a citizens arrest. During that I could have told him that I would hold him until the police got there and that can be as easy or as hard as he wants to make it.
National sovereignty at present is used to justify violations of individual rights in the name of "the nation"; see #140. It can be replaced by something benign in a libertarian republic, correct.
I love the "constitutional contract" part. Tell Demidog about it, he thinks there is no such thing.
By the way, in no way did I mean to slander all the other "old stone faces" on the facade of Chartres by comparing them to the non-Ron contingent of our Congress. I love every molecule of Chartres. In the interest of maintaining some semblance of Christmas spirit on this thread I will not type my feelings for the molecules in Congress...
I'll keep trying to post a picture.
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.