[uniopaypamp]

This is strange:

1) Some of the most extreme neocons have openly expressed their fear that "the liberals and Communist underground movement" are quite successfully conspiring to turn the USA into a State with a semi-Communist regime. (That is what they think - I don't agree.)

2) The same people want to change the laws so that the State be able to increase its control of the citizens.

On one hand, these people are very suspicious towards the State, and fear that there is a great risk that it might end up in the hands of some really nasty forces.

On the other hand, these people seem to be naively certain that the State will remain in the hands of good and reliable people who will never misuse laws which gives them detailed control over the citizens.

I'd like to ask everyone who defends the new proposal that the State shall have the right to open mail: Maybe you trust the present Authorities and think that they will never abuse this possibility. But do you now trust all Authorities in the future?

Can you tell your children that "any Authority in the future will be good and worthy of your full confidence"?

Because, as you know, a new law will be used not only by those who issue the law, but by all the following authorities.

[primaveraloler]

And when they do, they will be dealt with. Until that time, my life is more important than my privacy. But thats just me.

I agree with you, in that I value my life over my privacy; but I honestly don't feel threatened whatsoever. I am much more worried about getting into a car accident or choking on a piece of food than about getting killed by an act of terrorism. I'm not going to want the government monitoring all of my driving and eating to protect me, so I'm definitely not going to want the government monitoring my mail, of all things, to protect me from a much more unlikely death. For the President to "interpret" the right to open mail in any circumstance deemed "exigent" seems a bit too much for me.

[StethyEntinic]

This is strange:

1) Some of the most extreme neocons have openly expressed their fear that "the liberals and Communist underground movement" are quite successfully conspiring to turn the USA into a State with a semi-Communist regime. (That is what they think - I don't agree.)

2) The same people want to change the laws so that the State be able to increase its control of the citizens.

On one hand, these people are very suspicious towards the State, and fear that there is a great risk that it might end up in the hands of some really nasty forces.

On the other hand, these people seem to be naively certain that the State will remain in the hands of good and reliable people who will never misuse laws which gives them detailed control over the citizens.

I'd like to ask everyone who defends the new proposal that the State shall have the right to open mail: Maybe you trust the present Authorities and think that they will never abuse this possibility. But do you now trust all Authorities in the future?

Can you tell your children that "any Authority in the future will be good and worthy of your full confidence"?

Because, as you know, a new law will be used not only by those who issue the law, but by all the following authorities.

Zing!!!!

[uniopaypamp]

Zing? What's that?

[primaveraloler]

Zing? What's that?

Heheh... I think it's a Mass thing, eh IronMaiden? It means you got the neocons good with your post, Maxture.

[StethyEntinic]

It means your post was wicked awesome

[uniopaypamp]

Thanks, IM27. You too produce some great posts!

[SmuffNuSMaxqh]

Once we have defeated the enemy, this will no longer be neccesary and I will expect rights to be returned.

And therein lies the problem. Once they've taken that right away, they have no real obligation to give it back...

[StethyEntinic]

Thanks, IM27. You too produce some great posts!

Thanks

[Heliosprime]

Opening other people's mail is a federal offense

Prologue - Prologue: Selected Articles

zing!!!! wow a dem? who would have thought I guess there was a WAR on.....

[Peterli]

This is strange:

1) Some of the most extreme neocons have openly expressed their fear that "the liberals and Communist underground movement" are quite successfully conspiring to turn the USA into a State with a semi-Communist regime. (That is what they think - I don't agree.)

2) The same people want to change the laws so that the State be able to increase its control of the citizens.

On one hand, these people are very suspicious towards the State, and fear that there is a great risk that it might end up in the hands of some really nasty forces.

On the other hand, these people seem to be naively certain that the State will remain in the hands of good and reliable people who will never misuse laws which gives them detailed control over the citizens.

I'd like to ask everyone who defends the new proposal that the State shall have the right to open mail: Maybe you trust the present Authorities and think that they will never abuse this possibility. But do you now trust all Authorities in the future?

Can you tell your children that "any Authority in the future will be good and worthy of your full confidence"?

Because, as you know, a new law will be used not only by those who issue the law, but by all the following authorities.

That's the rub, isn't it. I think that this can easily be explained by the fact that, in the parlance of modern US politics, Bush is actually quite liberal (with the only notable exception being wedge issues). Bush and the neocons that he has allowed to guide his policy decisions favor increased domestic spending, increased government scope in the name of 'security', hegemonic and interventionist foreign policy, and the idea that the rights of the individual are secondary to the rights of the state. All of these policies, endorsed by the Bush administration, are decidedly 'liberal' (i.e. supported by left wing democrats or 'socialists').

So, partisans on either side become confused. You have 'liberals' vehemently opposing a paternalistic war (probably mostly because it was 'conservatives' who ordered it) and you have 'conservatives' who used to parrot Reagan on the evils of government tripping over one another to cough up their civil liberties.

It's an odd state of affairs. Personally, I consider myself to be a "classic liberal" (or in more modern terms, a 'libertarian') and I have a lot of trouble with people calling themselves 'conservative' while defending a President who has consistently and thoroughly increased government intrusiveness in the lives of citizens.

[Peterli]

Once we have defeated the enemy, this will no longer be neccesary and I will expect rights to be returned.

Once we've given up our basic rights, why bother "defeating the enemy"? What do we have to fight for?

And, general philosophical statements aside, the "war on terror" is an inherently endless and futile proposition. We will never win, we will always be in a state of emergency, and we will never get our rights back (unless someone stops this nonsense). Basically, this is like declaring a war on crime, throwing miranda and habeus corpus out the window, and then assuring the citizens that once the war on crime has been won, they'll get these rights back.

[StethyEntinic]

Once we've given up our basic rights, why bother "defeating the enemy"? What do we have to fight for? Tis true

[cokLoolioli]

There is no right to privacy in the constitution, in my opinion. The act of joining with others to gain mutual protection means that you have to give up some freedoms. Its only logical. This is why the constituion does protect the basic right to move freely and choose your leadership. Which is why I do not fear the govt. Once they step out of line they get booted. In addition, the govt is made of AMERICANS, and is run by AMERICAN representatives of AMERICANS, who have the same wish to not return to fascist dictatorships. This is why it is unlikely that the paranoias that everyone fears will ever come true. Everyone watches everyone and is a check on power.

In the end, we still have our guns, and are not shy about using them. So you guys can fear the govt all you want, but I think the real enemy is the terrorists, and that we should do what is neccesary to take them out.

[Cajlwdvx]

Once we've given up our basic rights, why bother "defeating the enemy"? What do we have to fight for?

Given up our basic rights? Exactly what "right" has been violated? There is absolutely no right to privacy mentioned in the constitution.

And, general philosophical statements aside, the "war on terror" is an inherently endless and futile proposition. I agree we should declare war on those who are engaging in these terrorist acts; namely Muslims.

We will never win, we will always be in a state of emergency, and we will never get our rights back (unless someone stops this nonsense). Until the liberals allow us to bypass this pc crap and recognize the enemy for who they are Republicans will continue to be lambasted for anything they do regarding this enemy, especially by the media. This enemy is not constrained by borders therefore we can't declare war on a specific nation. And liberals have made it abundantly clear they have no intention of confronting the enemy.

Basically, this is like declaring a war on crime, throwing miranda and habeus corpus out the window, and then assuring the citizens that once the war on crime has been won, they'll get these rights back. As I said I agree we should just declare war on Islam.

Varus

[AdvertisingPo]

Someone told me that the abortion clinic bombers and timothy mcveigh were christians.


Can we declare war on Christianity too?

[StethyEntinic]

HA! Might as well

[SmuffNuSMaxqh]

The problem I see with this whole idea is that there's no way you can possibly tell if a piece of mail is from a terrorist. Therefore, the only way to be sure that you catch them is to open up every single piece of mail that comes into this country from abroad.

That's lunacy, and it wouldn't surprise me if it required a completely new government agency to be able to complete the task...

[Peterli]

There is no right to privacy in the constitution, in my opinion. The act of joining with others to gain mutual protection means that you have to give up some freedoms. Its only logical. This is why the constituion does protect the basic right to move freely and choose your leadership. Which is why I do not fear the govt. Once they step out of line they get booted. In addition, the govt is made of AMERICANS, and is run by AMERICAN representatives of AMERICANS, who have the same wish to not return to fascist dictatorships. This is why it is unlikely that the paranoias that everyone fears will ever come true. Everyone watches everyone and is a check on power.

In the end, we still have our guns, and are not shy about using them. So you guys can fear the govt all you want, but I think the real enemy is the terrorists, and that we should do what is neccesary to take them out.

I agree with some of what you're saying, but I think that you overestimate what it would take to turn the US into a fascist state. States such as that aren't created overnight from free and happy societies. Almost invariably, a state of "national emergency" is called with no definitive end in sight. This is then followed by a series of small acts of power consolidation within government (eliminating checks and balances, for example). Then, more egregious acts of power consolidation are carried out, with anyone who opposes branded as a traitor and with lots of nationalist propaganda. This is almost exactly what happened to bring Germany from the Weimars to the Third Reich.

Now, don't get me wrong - I don't believe we have a Reich of our own developing here, and the people who compare Bush to Hitler or our government to the Nazis are just going for shock value. What I am pointing out, however, is the attitude and perspective that encourage fascism. It's a series of seemingly moderate concessions that add up to a big loss of freedom. I don't worry about Hitler taking over, but I do worry about the trend, since 9/11, of trading liberty for the promise of security with seemingly little opposition or consideration.

I realize that there is no explicit right to privacy in the constitution. That has been established, over the years, through case law and jurisprudence, and I value it in the extreme. Not to be crass, but would you oppose legislation allowing FBI agents to videotape you having sex in the name of national security? It's not in the constitution, so why not, right? I realize that this is extreme, but it's to make a point - we shouldn't be in a hurry to give up freedoms that have been granted over the course of time. And, when it comes to our privacy, the question isn't whether or not government agents will abuse their power, but when, how often, and how badly.

I'd personally trade a heaping portion of ostensible security for a guarantee of my freedom.

[Peterli]

Given up our basic rights? Exactly what "right" has been violated? There is absolutely no right to privacy mentioned in the constitution.

So, to use my example above, you would have no issue with the FBI video taping your wife in the shower for national security? It's not in the constitution, right?