Those of you who hate the patriot act will be interested in this...

[Rufus Rhastus J]

Of course the writer is as anti patriot act as I am and, sadly, i see some paroting of media sniviling but, the article is interesting as well as the last lines. Comments?

While Americans snooze, a creeping police state grows


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Almost imperceptibly, American freedoms are shrinking with only scant objections from a few voices in the proverbial wilderness.

The modus: creating the fear of terrorism and the corresponding need for stringent new "national security" measures.

Consider a U.S. Supreme Court decision this week.

The court denied the appeal of a former FBI translator fired after complaining vital intelligence was poorly translated and that one colleague was engaged in espionage. Even the Justice Department's inspector general concluded the translator's allegations had merit. Yet, the high court's justices refused to listen to the translator's appeal for reinstatement because the FBI claimed—without a shred of proof—that "national security" was at stake and therefore the case shouldn't be heard.

The court gave the same treatment to "dirty bomb" terrorism suspect Jose Padilla, finally charged with lesser crimes after three years of detention: Government lawyers claimed prosecuting Padilla would reveal "national security" without even explaining what security.

How many of those several hundred other detainees being held as "suspects" in terrorism truly are guilty of anything?

The Patriot Act, with powers to snoop and prosecute anyone for even mentioning they're being investigated, should've been a tip-off that there may be no limit to the creep toward an American police state being engineered by hardliners.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon is expanding activities of the little known and relatively new office of Counterintelligence Field Activity to allow the military to spy on Americans for "national security" reasons.

And what domestic "national security" might interest the Pentagon?

Older Americans with memories of a president who betrayed civil liberties recall President Richard Nixon's June 1970 authorization of "The Huston Plan" allowing the CIA, FBI and Pentagon to spy on critics of the Vietnam War and to round up and detain them. Outrage forced Nixon to cancel the program.

It's time again for Americans to pay attention to intelligence webs, this time woven in the name of fighting terrorism.

The more than 50 government groups known to exist within the U.S. intelligence apparatus, a network of foreign prisons being used to grill suspects whisked away incommunicado on secretive U.S. planes, and a Congress with no stomach to investigate or restrain the Bush administration, should give pause.

We should worry at least as much about the creation of a homegrown and unchecked police state as we do about foreign terrorists.


:right: This last line is the important part.

[Father Time]

I'm already worried until my stomach hurts. Unfortunately it appears that most people would find standing up for the Bill of Rights to be uncomfortable or inconvienient. We Americans do love our comfort.

[iflylow74]

Very scary!

[Outriderdark]

I'm beyond scared now. Nobody cares. Rather, no one with any power cares. It's all going down the drainpipe. Thomas Jefferson is rolling over.....

[BattleRifleG3]

... and realizing Washington and Adams were right.

[Outriderdark]

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

[troy2000]

I was hoping someone would come up with the Ben Franklin quote; I agree 100%.

Anyone remember Peter Arnett claiming a major told him, "we had to destroy the village in order to save it," referring to the the village of Ben Tre during the Tet Offensive? I've always had my doubts about whether the guy actually said it or Arnett made it up, but either way it struck a nerve. And that's how I feel about the Patriot Act: they're dismantling our freedoms under the guise of saving them.

The administration is trying to reassure us that they're only going to use those powers against the bad guys. But I was around during the Nixon era, and I remember how easy it was to get on the bad-guy list.

They don't need to take our guns. They're letting us keep them while they bleed us to death a few ounces at a time...

[Rave]

Check out "Unintended Consiquences."

[Rufus Rhastus J]

:right: I remember the first time i mentioned how I hated the patriot act. All i heard was how I was silly, that bush and company were doing nothing to harm our cival rights that the government was our pal and no harm would come to innocent americans. It's refreashing to see folks are wakeing up to the fact that the patriot act is anything but patriotic!:right:

[Rockabilly88]

Originally Posted by BattleRifleG3

... and realizing Washington and Adams were right.

Right about what? Washington and Adams were federalists calling for more government Jefferson was an anti-federalist calling for less government. So how are the Federalists right?

[Thrawn]

Originally Posted by Rufus Rhastus J

:right: I remember the first time i mentioned how I hated the patriot act. All i heard was how I was silly, that bush and company were doing nothing to harm our cival rights that the government was our pal and no harm would come to innocent americans. It's refreashing to see folks are wakeing up to the fact that the patriot act is anything but patriotic!:right:

But the question still remains, "will enough wake up in time?" Right up until Bush's second term I was happy with big government. To me the the Patriot Act seemed like a great idea, even though I had no idea what it was about I just thought it only covered TERRORISTS, I mean with the word "Patriot" in the title it's got to be good right? I thought that the gummit would take care of me, heck lets keep a big military and add on a few more federal agencies. Whatever it takes to keep those terrorists away. Then I started to wake up. True the patriot act has not affected me yet, but it could. Without any proof, or least none will be shown in the name of "national security", I can be picked up in the middle of the night and detained without bond, trial, reason, etc... all in the name of national security. Well after knowing this I don't exactly feel safe anymore, do you? Buying guns and pursuing 2nd ammendment issues could very well make me a terrorist in some officeholders eye's.

[Outriderdark]

The answer is no, thrawn. Unfortunately.

[iflylow74]

Thrawn

I totally agree. Terrorist can be a relative term. To the British, our Founding Fathers were terrorists, to the north, the Conferderates were terrorists and so on. Now I do know what the intended meaning of terrorist is in the patriot act but whose to say 10 years down the road, my stash of ammo and weapons will make me a terrorist??? Thats what scares me!!!

[BattleRifleG3]

Originally Posted by Rockabilly88

Right about what? Washington and Adams were federalists calling for more government Jefferson was an anti-federalist calling for less government. So how are the Federalists right?

They wanted a firmer government from the get go. Jeffersons was more disorganized and less defined. The government may have been bigger at the beginning, but for being better defined and restricted, I hold that the government would have better kept within its own bounds. As it turned out, the open-endedness that Jefferson left allowed it to grow.

It has everything to do with my view on humanity lining up more with Washington and Adams, who were Christians, compared with Jefferson, who was a deist. A basic Christian view on government is that it is necessary, as said so in Scripture, because man is sinful. Of course government is made up of men who are sinful too. Hence why the American government has checks and balances between levels and branches, and a constitution whose laws limit what government is supposed to do.

Jefferson, who had way more to say than he actually knew (though he served the country well by his skillful speech and writing), said he expected regular revolutions and rebellions from time to time, and that it was better than having one government too long. Washington, who had seen and fought two wars, would have never designed a country for war. I don't think Jefferson expected our Constitution to last very long.

Basically I see Jefferson's views on government as loose, opening the doors for our government to grow in ways he never intended. Washington wanted the government to be strong, central, and limited. Washington's idea would have been bigger at first, but if Jefferson had seen how things would go in the long run, he'd probably have gone with Washington more.

Regarding things that would make them both turn over in their graves, I think we can all agree that about the Civil War.

[Outriderdark]

Originally Posted by BattleRifleG3

Regarding things that would make them both turn over in their graves, I think we can all agree that about the Civil War.

The stripping of states rights before, during and after it are what really would make them roll.

[troy2000]

I'll be spending some time looking over our history from a new viewpoint.

Assuming yours is valid, I'd have to say that my heart would be with Jefferson, but my head with the other two. What gives your opinion weight to me is my own belief: that the reason our revolution was more successful in the long run than most others is that it was basically carried out by the local establishment, more so than by the wild-eyed radicals.

Segueing from there to the Civil War, I again have split loyalties. My heart would have been with the South. I agree legally with their argument that if you join a Union voluntarily you should be able to leave at any time, and I probably would have fought with them.

But looking at it from a historical perspective my head has to go with Lincoln, and his statement that "A house divided against itself cannot stand." He was speaking specifically about slavery at the time, but he was right. A win by the South would have led to the Balkanization of the American States, and we'd have split and resplit until we were splintered, then been picked off one by one by outside forces, or eventually been forcibly reunited by whichever State became the most militaristic, like the German Principalities were by Prussia. Our constitutional system of government would have been long gone.

[BattleRifleG3]

Originally Posted by Outriderdark

The stripping of states rights before, during and after it are what really would make them roll.

Indeed.

My view on the Civil War is that it was not the people, but the governments that forced the Civil War. I think there was a very clear answer that the Southern Aristocrats refused to accept for nothing but selfish reasons. Many compromises regarding slavery were made in order to maintain the Union, from the very beginning when SC refused to stand for independence if slavery were outlawed from the start. Banning the importation of slaves in 1808 was a compromise reached in the 1788 Constitution.

I believe that the Southern Aristocrats, at the expense of their own citizens, made the WRONG compromises. Instead, they should have conceded slavery as a compromise, and in return demanded concessions on the other issues that led to the Civil War. The abolitionist movement would have gladly made concessions to the south in order to fully end slavery. But that was the trump card that the minority of southerners after the 1817 depression who owned slaves refused to use.

In short, I hold that it was minority aristocratic rule in the south that could have stopped the Civil War but refused to.

[Rufus Rhastus J]

I doubt enough will wake up to change anything. This is why we should attack those who attack our rights. I think it's time to start a recall to remove bush! Though he will be gone in a few.....sadly, he has crippled the repubs so badly i expect they will loose all control and become as the dems are now. They surly won't be back in the white house, of this i'll wager cash!

[Outriderdark]

BRG3,
I think that is perhaps true of most wars, with the possible exception of the Revolution. Aristocracy uses everyone else to thier own ends.
In regards to Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and so forth - It's what made the formation of this nation so amazing and infinitely interesting.
The perfect group of men (or as near perfect as could ever be expected), and not just the famous ones - the lesser known founders as well....converged at just the right time in just the right place. One wishes woefully that the slavery issue could have been worked out then so it did not blemish an otherwise great time in world history. They tried to sort out the slavery thing, but decided in the end to leave it to future generations.

[troy2000]

Amen, Outriderdark. Unlike some people, I don't worship them as superhuman and infallible. But I have to admit that it was probably as impressive a group as has ever been gathered together in one time and place.