in the U.S., be careful what you read (page 5)

Yerusalyim

You'll find that Omar's story is the exception, not the rule.

Perhaps if the INS had been this stringent BEFORE 9-11 there wouldn't have BEEN a 9-11.

ThiChi

""Perhaps if the INS had been this stringent BEFORE 9-11 there wouldn't have BEEN a 9-11.""

Bingo! Powerful point!

Simon

Garbage. It is heavy handed foreign policies that created Sept 11 and nothing to do with this erosion of privacy or civil liberties. They are now using what happened to line their own nest of power.

I'm sure you'll find some article to copy and paste about it Thi Chi

It's easy to think "Hey, I'm innocent ... I'll never get caught up in this" and that mistaken identity is the exception rather than the rule but when you get government agencies with too much power, little or no accountability and a refusal to admit error then it is a recipe for disaster and serious micarriages of justice.

A 70year old guy form the UK on holiday in South Africa found himself arrested and detained for weeks because some dumb intelligence jerk thought he was a terrorist. They were not interested in the proof they had of his real identity as they woudl not admit they could be wrong.

No apology at the end of it.

Valis

It might be added that long before 9/11 there was this kind of business going on..its called Carnivore...

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0%2C1283%2C40335%2C00.html

I'm hoping many protions of the Patriot Act, or the Act itself get repealed or expire entirely. It truly is a sad day when you see signs that have to warn you of the possibility of government eyes on your choice of reading.

Sincerely,

District Overbeer

patio34

If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you're a terrorist. -- George W. Bush

The new Patriot II extends the powers to people who would even unknowingly feed a lunch to a terrorist. Yerusalim makes a very good point by saying who has had their rights violated? Of course, it's what is being made legal to do. And possibly the hundreds already detained. It reminds me of the Nazi story of:

"When they came for the gypsies, I didn't care--it didn't affect me. When they came for the Jews, I didn't care, it didn't affect me. When they came for me, there was no one left to care."

Additionally, the need to show probable cause would be gone, the warrant does NOT need to be signed by a judge for good reason--it only needs to state there is an ongoing investigation.

Suspects and material witnesses can be detained indefinitely and secretly. There's NO right to a speedy trial.

Yerusalim, the time to act is before we have our civil rights taken away. Not after it's made into law. Then it's too late, except for the courts--however, the ACLU says it's not expecting much success in that arena. Besides, there are plenty of cases of people who have had their rights violated--but I'm not going to take the time to look it up for you. The point is that WE all have to care enough to inform ourselves, not just sit back and trust that all is well.

Did we forget what a democracy is? We influence governments before and when they're making laws.

It kind of reminds me of reasoning inside the Borg--wait on Jehovah (wait on the government); trust God's organization (trust our leaders); we don't know the whole story why the elders df'd someone (we don't have the info George Bush claims to have).

This is not a theocracy! People need to be involved! It's a government BY the people!

Pat

teejay

It kind of reminds me of reasoning inside the Borg--wait on Jehovah (wait on the government); trust God's organization (trust our leaders); we don't know the whole story why the elders df'd someone (we don't have the info George Bush claims to have).

Patio,

I hate it when people try to draw parallels to the jw religion when it comes to EVERYTHING, but this time I'm afraid the comparison fits. It's bad enough that Bush and his crew are trying to rewrite the Constitution; what makes it worse is the gung-ho, rah rah attitude of the average American who are afraid to even question their "leaders" ... an attitude that Bush and his buddies are co-opting for their own agenda and for the benefit of their corporate friends. Not real happy about the latest developements... not one bit.

teejay

You'll find that Omar's story is the exception, not the rule. -- Yeru

BTW, Yeru, if a single innocent person suffers, we ALL suffer. That's something I was taught in grade school, anyway. Maybe I was taught wrong...

Kingpawn

Yeru,

I've read 1984 several times.

Remember the people in the movie theater Winston Smith wrote about? The ones who, when Emmaneul Goldstein, Enemy of the People, and later the Eastasian soldier appeared onscreen, went berserk, one even throwing a book at the screen? But when Big Brother appeared calm was restored. They remind me of Americans today who mindlessly chant the government's mantra in "why we need to surrender some of our rights in pursuit of terrorists."

When you said "Omar's treatment was the exception, not the rule," I don't read any condemnation of it, merely a statement that it's not common. Does that make it right? The plain intent was coercion and trying to break him psychologically. Strip-searched, body cavity search in front of people, no access to a phone or lawyer, no hot water, two weeks without a change of clothes. You, Yeru, should read Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago, especially the section where he details many of the nonviolent ways the KGB "leaned" on people. They wanted a confession to look good and bolster their case for these laws, nothing more. And grudgingly let him go when nothing turned up.

No wonder Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch criticize this country. For us to call China out on Tianemen Square, and then we do things like this, is us calling the kettle black.

This "if you're clean, what have you got to hide?" line spouted by some is balderdash. You're a terrorist if the government says you are, pal. If we have to stoop to measures like this to preserve our freedom, then perhaps the terrorists have already won.

Like TJ and Uzzah said, in a perfect world we could trust the government when it says the info collected will never be misused. Neither the Administration (any admin) nor our officials are perfect. It lives on secrecy (Dumya signed a bill allowing even currently living former Presidents to block release of Presidential papers--including his old man. Why? If they're clean, what've they got to hide?), power trips (this government says it's so "state's rights." Tell that to the voters in Florida when the Supreme Court blocked the Presidential vote recount in 2001; to the citizens of Oregon, where the Justice Department's fighting a citizen-backed "assisted suicide" law; in California, where the DEA (with nothing else to do, presumably) is fighting their citizen-backed "medical marijuana" law), and a "the end justifies the means" ethos.

The passage another poster mentioned about the gypsies sums it up. Martin Niemoeller was a Lutheran pastor in Hitler's Germany. He mentioned how when several groups of people were arrested he said nothing, not being a member of those groups (trade unionists, Communists, Catholics, Jews, etc.). "And when at last they came for me, there was no one left to speak up for me." He went to Dachau in 1938 and was freed in 1945 by Allied soldiers.

I don't know if my rights have been violated on an individual basis. If the FBI came in and searched my house while I was gone, they don't even have to leave a note behind telling anything about it. But must I wait until I suffer personally before speaking up?

BTW Yeru, you've had military training. What stops a government agent from wondering if you're an al-Queda "sleeper" agent and decide to lock you up? Maybe you rode in the same cab as a terrorist? Is the driver your "contact?" Have you been within the terrorist's sphere of influence in the past few years?

That last paragraph can be written off as sarcasm that's maybe over the top; but it's not far, imo, from the logic and mindset of today's "security" gurus.

Guest 77

Yer, you asked the question about who has read 1984. Well, I haven't though I've heard a lot about it. My question to you is, have you read, 'The Right To Travel' (Liberty or License) by Charles A. Weisman?

If you have, then you would have answered your own question which was, "..who has experienced the loss of a single freedom a violation of a civil liberty? and then I hear....Silence.

Guest 77

berylblue

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

in the U.S., be careful what you read

Share this