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.
The son of the police officer, Chris, was part of the burglary that my Nephew took part in. Chris being 18 at the time faced felony charges as an adult. His father, the police officer, was able to have charges dismissed against his son. The other three all had house detention for six weeks and probation for another six months.
The father and son are the only two that live in their home. His house was/is(?) the place where the kids would crash and do drugs, mostly marijuana, propane inhalation, cocaine, and ecstacy. The son tried his best not to consume his merchandise and really only had a dependency on marijuana. The father in many ways was a facilitator for his sons problems and took personal blame for his conduct. It will take a long time for this young man to grow up, because he never has had the opportunity to grow up. He is 21 now and still at home.
"If a true violation of rights occurred..."
In your world, China has the right to commit an act of aggression to apprehend the "criminal" being "harbored" within the borders of the weaker country.
Might makes right in your world but that's libertarian and not statism.
Yes, I probably would support extradiction of draft dodgers when draft existed in America at wartime. Invasion of Canada is another story, since such military enterprise would not be in proportion to the magnitude of the offence.
Canada refused to extradite. There are even countries that refuse to extradite murderers because they don't believe in the death penalty. What do you do?
I voted GOP when alot of GOP folks were too lazy to get off their duffs and go to the polls and vote.
I would, of course, do nothing beside maybe a diplomatic demarche of some kind, for the reason I already stated: that the response must be proportionate to the offence. Same with extradictions on the grounds of death penalty. None of that are sovereignty disputes though. Canada doesn't say: we do with your draft dodgers whatever we please bacause we are Canada. They say: we think it is an individual's right to dodge draft. That is an honest dispute about individual rights.
If you read some comments in Defense of Liberty. National Self-Determination: An International Political Lie you'd understand my position better because there are nuances in it that I think, you refuse to hear, thinking that I obfuscate. This is what I think:
A government has a duty to protects the rights of its citizens anywhere. But it may not make laws outside of its jurisdiction, nor may it invalidate local laws if they respect individual rights. I think the confusion is between individual rights and statutory law. Rights are universal; law is local.In other words, we should distinguish between sovereignty as an excuse for oppression and local jurisdiction. I have nothing against the latter.
China criminalizes political dissent; it even criminalizes a meditation movement. I doubt that they have defense attorneys that are not court-appointed. In that legal environment I would not find even a straightforward criminal conviction credible.
Osama's apparent crime is murder (if there is any evidence against him at all).
Now you explain to me what the difference is when Canada refuses to turn over a murderer and Afghanistan refuses.
Afghanistan refused because we didn't offer any evidence. Canada refuses because they think the penalty is too harsh. Your double standard is starting to become quite apparent.
Bzzzzzzt. Nope.
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.