Topic: Patriot Act
The Importance of the Patriot Act Why the Patriot Act is good for America and answering some criticisms.by Analysis
(Statist)
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Instead of getting into a debate on the constitution or why it prohibits the Patriot Act, let's pretend it doesn't say anything about "right to privacy." Let us explain examine why the Patriot Act is either good or bad without falling back on the argument "because the forth amendment prohibits it."
This is an argument for the Patriot Act and why the government should have the power to do what it needs in order for America to remain safe. Perhaps we should even expand the powers of the Patriot Act to be sure that we the people are safe and the government can do its job.
The US Department of Justice has a good argument for the act that you may find here: [link edited for length]. The Department of Justice gives about a dozen reasons to keep the act and attempts to support their claims with details.
You may also find other arguments for the act over the internet or magazines, but this column will examine the arguments against the act as presented by some very intelligent sources.
The American Civil Liberties Union, who I am a fan of, presented a "point-by-point rebuttal" in the winter of 2005 which you may read here: [link edited for length]. It is a good article if someone is interested on the subject. Some of the points they make are as followed.
The ACLU argues that the John Doe "roving wiretaps" do not identify the target or phone that is wiretapped. They also state that the target does not need to be near the phone to "listen in." So what? The less restrictions the government has, the easier it is to find the guilty. If these people are truly innocent of crimes then they shouldn't be afraid that the authority is listening in on them. Someone might be concerned that this power can be used for other reasons than security, but it is unlikely. I might be foolish for trusting the government to do only what is needed, but I do not think Washington cares about my personal beliefs or what my personal life is like. So long as they do not feel you are a treat no one will bother you.
The same argument can be applied to the first section of the "sneak-and-peak searches." Once again, if you are not carrying anything dangerous or incriminating, don't worry, you'll be fine. The 30-day time limit point is also unimportant. If there is a reason for the government to take so long, who cares? The more time granted means a better investigation.
Most of the other points would have similar responses to the ones above so let's move on to the impact the Patriot Act is having.
The Department of Justice explains some of the benefits of the Patriot Act in the link above. A brief summary of the benefits include: allowing the government to use techniques and tools against terrorists we use against crime, use harsher punishment against terrorists and their allies and grants the government powers to better connect the dots.
I will not get into to much detail and allow you to explore the issue. The Patriot Act is important to us and our security. We must embrace the act and insure the continued prosperity of America.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 4 thumbs so far
2008 Analysis, all rights reserved.
Published: Saturday, March 22, 2008
Last modified: Sunday, March 23, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Analysis only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Analysis is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I know I'm not a threat to the government , but do they?I'm not concerned so much with the idea that I'm being watched as I am with the idea that they can change their definition of a dangerous citizen at will.(read HR 1955) What if I say that I don't agree with Bush's policies and I think he's dangerous? Now that I'm being monitored who is to say that I won't be arrested and jailed without due process just for making the statement? I'm not nearly as frightened by terrorism as I am by the men who tell me that they have to strip Americans of their rights so that they can protect us. Excuse me for being paranoid, but I've read enough about how governments can become brutally authoritarian by feeding off the fear of their citizenry. We should not have to remind our lawmakers that there is a system in this country and it is based on our Constitution. They swore in their oath of office to uphold it as a condition of their employment by the people of this country. This administration has lied about so many important issues, I don't know how you take any information they give at face value. If I were you I would interview people who defected here from Russia before the end of the Cold War or Cuba and ask them about the glories of living in a statist country.
"Instead of getting into a debate on the constitution or why it prohibits the Patriot Act, let's pretend it doesn't say anything about 'right to privacy'."
The idea that you even have to entertain that, in order for your argument to work makes the rest of this essay meaningless. Quite plainly, I have 4 words for you: It's the Constitution, stupid.
Mr. 1up: I said that so I can get an arguement why the Patriot Act is wrong using resorces other than "because the Constitution says so." What do you think the Constitution says and why does it say it? "It's the Constitution, stupid" is a good start, now expand.
Jess: I will look into HR 1955 as you recommended and will present my thoughts on it.
Personally, I am not a big fan of the Bush administration. Our current leaders are generally doing a terrible job in office. I am definatly ready for the 2008 elections to be over and done with.
I also respect your concerns regarding the government. You bring up an interesting point about the potential for our democratic nation to turn into a dictatorship like state. I do not share your concerns, however. The governmet has checks and balances within it to prevent such tyranny as locking people away for disagreeing with the system. I do not personally feel threatened that the United States will turn into Soviet Russia, so long as we have these shared powers between congress and the president.
As for being locked up for thinking Bush is dangerous I think your concerns are well placed, but unfounded. So long as you are not planning to violently overthrow the government I do not think they would care what you believe. If they wanted to lock up someone for not liking Bush they would have to incarcerate A LOT of people. Perhaps I am just a trusting fool, though.
I would also like to read about your beliefs. Do you have any suggestions on reading material?
I am proud to say I didn't read a word of your article. Clearly you wrote it to get comments and to stir up "a lively discussion" so here is your comment and count this as your discussion...good day to your sir
I gave you a thumbs up for inviting dialogue. Not because I agree with your message, but rather because your viewpoints are an essential contrast with those of others to create learning for all.
You may catch a lot of flak for being a statist on the Nolan Chart which is currently dominated by libertarians, but keep plugging and please stick around. All viewpoints have a valid basis in someones belief, even though we will obviously not always agree on goals, methodology, or approach.
The main problem I have with your article, of course, is that it requires an analysis of the problem set aside from the Constitution.
As a authoritarian statist, I can see why that approach might seem logical. Unfortunately, it has a single flawed premise: once you start eliminating the basis of likely objections to the item in question, there is nothing stopping the other side from doing so as well.
As examples, what proofs can you provide that the PATRIOT act has done any good at all, ignoring the possibility that hypothetically the PATRIOT act is primiarly aimed at terrorists?
I , as a rule, dislike exclusions by form. It gives people a very simple way to dismiss your argument and to suggest you are presenting a slanted view.
As to your actual points, I'm not sure I follow. While I certainly have no fear of the government and no problems with constant government surveilance, even WITHIN the confines of "ignore the Consitution for a moment", the premise fails. The only checks and balances to secure proper use of the powers entailed in the PATRIOT act are in the Consitution.
Finally, you make a very dangerous pair of completely unfounded assertions as a rationale for why it's worth keeping the PATRIOT act despite potential unconsitutionality and abuse. The first is that the 30-day limit is unimportant. It's one of my main problems with it. Strict statism suggest the government needs unrestricted access to powers unlikely to be used against the people and unlikely to allow the abuse of such power for personal gain. I can think of dozens of situations where that 30-day limit makes little sense -- the government has investigative teams that have all the power availble to the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, CDC analysis labs, and every crime lab in the country. What could possibly take 30 days in the sneak and peek views?
More troublingly, you close your arguement with the suggestion that the prosperity of America depends on this act. I disagree. The prosperity of that segment of the government which enjoys using the threat of terrorist activity as a spur to encourage the military-industrial complex to grow is certainly enamored with it, but many people are not.
I can understand clearly why you would hold these points. To someone with common sense , limiting the government's ability to conduct critical investigations due to people's faux outrage over their "privacy" is hilarious, espeically considering how deeply their privacy is violated or could be violated every single day by most corporations. However, whenever we begin using libertarian tricks of excluding reality to say "what if", we go down a path where we are just tricking ourselves.
A PATRIOT act that required a sworn jury of common American citizens to review the request data, and an independant elected offical to vet each request, as well as open verification that only proper sources and targets were used (of course, exlcuding anything that would compromise intel sources) would fufill the requirements of the Constitution AND allow the use of the PATRIOT act.
Of course, as a firm advocate of a Constitutional Republic, I have a major problem with the Patriot Act. One of my concerns is that this Act has been sold to both Congress and the American People as a response to the 9/11 attacks when that is not the case. The Patriot Act was crafted long before that fateful day and was rammed down the throats of Congress without debate and basically without knowledge of the content of the Act itself.
Centralization, in other words: Statism, has a long history of failure. To look at the results of this political ideology all you have to do is look around at the total idiocy that has permeated our government for the last 70 years or so. The picture you see is the result of an growing ideology of Statism that seeks to promote the State as the answer to all problems. Whether this Statism follows a Fascist or Socialist flavor, has not worked nor can it work because it ignores the very constitution of human nature and the differences between the sympathetic or social feelings within various communities.
The Patriot Act, as well as the numerous other Acts, including our government's military actions have taken on the same type of Statist Sloganism that is common to all Socialist and Fascist States in history. As with all such States, systemic failure tends to eat away at the Nation upon which such systems are imposed.
Such Statism gravitates toward a Jingoism that eventually brings disaster to both the people of the Nation and the government.
There are only two types of Statist, one leans toward Fascism, the other toward Socialism. Neither will function effectively over the long term, each will eventually implode due to the undercurrents of human nature and thus action. Besides the wisdom of men is always lacking in such governments, eventually Statist governments cease to function because of the exponential multiplication of bureaucracy within such systems. As an example, just look at our own Statist government which adds over 75,000 pages of codes, laws, and regulations to the Federal Register each and every year. Such additions are physically impossible to enforce due to size, but impossible to enforce due to the lack of human ability to interpret such legal mumbo-jumbo.
The encroachment of statism on our civil and individual liberties is similar to the frog in the pot analogy, where if you throw a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will jump out, but if you put him in a pot of cold water and gradually bring it to a boil, it will stay in until cooked.
We are becoming that which we detest most. Today, one out of a hundred Americans is incarcerated, making the US the world's leading prison state...
The threat from Al-Qaeda was deliberately exaggerated to make it seem like a powerful global organization to replace the cold war threat...
Lies upon lies were told to justify war to enrichen the few at the expense of the many...
Voting machines have been and are being manipulated erasing any pretense of a democracy...
On the horizon awaits a universal ID card, part of the master plan to monitor your every move...
The Patriot Act is Orwellian double-speak. Any true patriot sees through the lies and understands the implications of a surveillance society on our freedom. Its true meaning - an act against patriots.
Republicae, you stated "There are only two types of Statist, one leans toward Fascism, the other toward Socialism". This is somewhat akin to me saying there are only two kinds of Libertarian, one leans towards white nationalist conspiracy thinking and the other towards pure anarchy and killing all the rich people.
Please don't make things up. Socialism and Fascism are totally different from Corporatile Statism, Neo-Aristocracy, Limited Statism, Ward Statism, etc. When you try to prop up your main point (that the way the PATRIOT act was bad) with Libertarian propoganda, you undercut what started out as a very good argument, sir.
Try Hitler: A Study in Tyranny by Alan Bullock is a good place to start since Germany was a Democracy until his party infiltrated. Anything by George Orwell or Sinclair Lewis are more entertaining ways of seeing the statist movements of their times. Remember Hitler was a socialist and Mussilini was a fascist, both were statist. Either road leads to dictatorship and no one is safe in such a society. You may say that I'm a cynic, but if you think only good people are in charge of our information I think that's naive, but forgivable. If I have nothing to fear then they should not either. There should be transparancy and accountability in government to protect the people from their bad judgement. By the way, I hate the fact that corporations have access to my information and I have an inherent distrust of my social security card as it reduces me to a number.I dislike credit cards as well since I have always hated debt and the idea that they can track what I buy when.(Cash is freedom!) I think when you treat people like children they behave like children and when you rely too heavily on government you've sold yourself into slavery. If you feel that an open society is dangerous I say that a closed society becomes a legalized Mafia where brutality rules.Speaking of which, the USSR gave birth to what might be the most vicious organized crime syndicate to ever exist during their oppressive rule, thereby negating the argument that statism reduces crime. I'm with Thomas Jefferson when he said that he'd rather deal with the inconviences of too much liberty than those of too little.
It is not as if all statist political leaders were evil. There are some examples of enlightened absolutists. Gustav abolished torture and protected religious and press freedoms. Joseph the second was authoritarian and a statist yet followed enlightened ideals. Even today the absolute ruler of Oman can be considered more or less a benevolent dictator. Although not perfect, overal, these people reformed their countries for the better.
Oman also has a low murder ratio compared to countries like the UK, US and France.
I realize that, I'm a mom so therefore I AM a benevolent dictator. There are examples of good dictators however no one can gaurantee that the trend would continue after their rule. Look at monarchies, some kings/queens were great, others were tyrants. My point is too much centralized power can lead too easily toward such evil, if and when the new regime decides that their ideas are more important than the people's rights.Your examples point to men who may have power, but choose to put their people first and act more like governors than rulers. I personally have great respect for Marcus Aurelius, but then shudder when I think of Caligula or Nero. Lord Acton wrote that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Especially when a government is capitalizing on fear like ours is at the moment. There are too many similarities between America and Germany not to be spooked by it. That's why I recommended the reading I did, the paralell is important.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-03-25 11:31:59
Welcome to the chart.
First I agree with Jess about the rise anf fall of the third reich with regards to Hitlers rise to power. The current neo-con regime has taken many pages from the Nazis play book, coupled with an Orwellian-Huxley twist.
Please wake up to the fact that the current government is by far more fascist than it is free. Read Noami Klein's Shock Doctrine and you may see the current path a little more clearly.
Bottom line is the fact that you start out with the caveat that the Constitution (read rule of law) doesnt exist. It in fact is the law of the land, and the fact that the government would show total disregard for the framework of government that we have should be cause for concern enough, yet the statist seem to think that is ok.
You make the assumption that you are not doing anything wrong so who cares if the Fed meddles in every aspect of your life. What makes you think you are not already on the list. You openly verbalized dissent with the current system. Your First Ammend rights are gone. You have no Haebeus Corpus anymore. Wake up and get out of the water like the rest of us.
LP- I still dont get how you can equate LIBERTARIAN ideals as you do. Are fascism and socialism not part of statist ideals? I agree that the orignial commentor left out Communism so he was incorrect with the two types monicker. What is the definition of corporate statism but fascism?
Libertarian, one leans towards white nationalist conspiracy thinking and the other towards pure anarchy and killing all the rich people.
This has to so with what? I know of no LIBERTARIAN that has these ideals, minus the fact that they could argue anarchy (lack of government) for themselves, but killing the rich? Really? I thought you more intelligent than that.
THe Patriot Act is truly doublespeak like the clean air initiative.
Republic not a Democracy. Also do you notice that all the puppet governments we prop up are democracy's and not Republics?
PH, libertarians have "placed" facism and socialism in the statist position the same way that some people claim all libertarians are racists or anarchist who hate the rich.
Socialism is best equated with pure liberalism, and has nothing to do with government authorities aside from the government distributing the power and wealth. Government is not an end.
Corporate Statism is the ideal that the government should encourage / regulate all aspects of business. Facist thinking is that corporations should BECOME government.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-04-03 13:32:05
LP
STATISM- "concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government."- Websters
Now Granted people like Rand (Russian) or Von Mises (Austrian living during the Fascist Regime of Italy and the Nazi party. Pretty smart guys with real first hand experience on the topics, even if they are kooky LIBERTARIANs in their writings) stated that Fascism and Socialism are in fact forms of statism , in Omnipotent Government. So on that one point you are fairly correct.
COMMUNISM- One phrase, the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republic (USSR) Marx wrote extensively about socialism as the first phase towards communism Read the Communist Manifesto or Capital. To the best of my knowledge Marx was not a LIBERTARIAN.
FASCISM- Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity.... The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.... Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number.... We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the nineteenth century was the century of the individual we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State". -Benito Mussolini (non-LIBERTARIAN)- The Doctrine of Fascism
A more modern definition may be "Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion"-Columbia University Professor Robert O. Paxton. Dr. Paxton goes on to define the essence of fascism-"a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions; 2. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits; 3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts; 4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint; 5. fear of foreign `contamination." This is the exact line that Hamilton followed ( Central Bank, Natural Aristocracy, Standing Armies, Eminent Domain, Alien and Sedition Act, the New Army, Allegance to the Banking elite over the Rights of the People)
Socialism refers to group of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1] This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history-Wikipedia
Winston Churchill described socialism as "a socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance"
So what do all these forms of government have in common? They all are for the supposed good of the STATE, regardless of the will or good of the people, HENCE STATISM!
This form of government (statism) is totally repugnant to the REPUBLIC, and should be fought with every means at our disposal.
Posted By: Matt D. Harris
Date: 2008-04-19 16:31:45
As a libertarian, I feel a need to speak out here regarding statism, socialism, corporatism, and capitalism. Clearly what we have today in the US is an ugly mix of corporatism (or mercantilism, which is an older term and less adept at describing what has come today to be known as corporatism by the likes of Ron Paul) and socialism. Both of these things require a strong state, but neither is an inherent component of statist philosophy. Indeed, you can be a statist and be absolutely opposed to socialism. While many have tried to paint socialism as a situation opposite fascism - where fascism is subordination of the citizenry to a strong state, and socialism is subordination of a strong state to the citizenry - I just don't see that as an honest description of what socialism is or has ever been. Indeed, I believe that fascism and socialism are quite similar, and that many statists believe neither to be a desireable state of their state. Both fascism and socialism generally do equate to the citizenry in service to a strong state, while ideological statists (sometimes known as conservative statists) wish to see a strong state that serves the citizenry, for example in the areas of crime prevention, law enforcement, and national defense. This seems to me - a libertarian - to be a perfectly reasonable ideology in theory.
The problem arises in practice, and thousands of years of strong states have always grown to represent the will of the ruling class in oppressing the people. Even in places where communist and socialist revolutions which supposedly were to help the people rise up against oppression by creating a strong state, the end result has been that the strong state becomes the oppressor of those who disagree with the choices and positions of its leadership.
Socialism also tends more towards being an socioeconomic philosophy, while fascism has inherently very little economic components. In reality, the opposite of socialism is free market capitalism. Socialism espouses a strong government which has vast regulatory power over private industry, while free market capitalists are proponents of minimal or no regulation of private interests. Likewise, anarcho-communism can be said to be the opposite of corporatism. The former is ideologically based upon the notion of no government and no ownership of property, while the latter entails strong government, often controlled by private interests.
Of these four options, the only logical choice that I can see, given the past 5,000 years of recorded government behavior, is free market capitalism.
I might be foolish for trusting the government to do only what is needed, but I do not think Washington cares about my personal beliefs or what my personal life is like. So long as they do not feel you are a treat no one will bother you.
Your first line is certainly true. And no, they probably don't care about your beliefs, but their political opponents, prominent businessmen, Greenpeace, war protesters, etc. etc. etc. they do care and can use any info they find for all types of nefarious deeds, balckmail being one. If you're innocent, why fear? That is really something you can best understand only after being innocent and subjected to all kinds of injustices, I only can hope that YOU are mistaken as as terrorist and tortured and financially destroyed for about a year or so, like has already happened, and then maybe you will rethink your position!
I am pretty centrist on a lot of things but I am more libertarian. I can see the logic on this view point because in all honesty if your aren't guilty then how does it concern you in the long run?
I think the Patriot Act is good however there are added possible implications in lieu of it that many find dissatisfying in regards to incrimination. I think it is fine as long as it doesn't lead to a fascist government. Your either with us or against us, which I think isn't good politics.
Posted By: Andrea Paolo Tosi
Date: 2008-05-07 19:53:26
I am pretty centrist on a lot of things but I am more libertarian. I can see the logic on this view point because in all honesty if your aren't guilty then how does it concern you in the long run?
I think the Patriot Act is good however there are added possible implications in lieu of it that many find dissatisfying in regards to incrimination. I think it is fine as long as it doesn't lead to a fascist government. Your either with us or against us, which I think isn't good politics as it implies individuality based on what is acceptable.
The Patriot Act is pure fascism, which has allowed agencies like the FBI and NSA the ability to quite literally strip any American citizen whom they target, of their rights under the US Constitution.
When you have the NSA using a satellite to track you by way of the bioelectromagnetic field which surrounds your body 24 hours a day, in which everything that you do and even think is recorded by way of a supercomputer, something has gone terribly wrong with the US Federal Government.
See John Akwei lawsuit against the NSA to learn more about this Nazi attack on both your sense of physical privacy and the privacy of your own thoughts.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Analysis, all rights reserved.