December 27, 2005
Weber County Forum Rudi-Annotated version
Via: U.S. (R) Rep. Ron Paul
Okay. I confess I doctored it up with my own links. So read it anyway.
Recent revelations that the National Security Agency has conducted broad surveillance of American citizens' e-mails and phone calls raise serious questions about the proper role of government in a free society. This is an important and healthy debate, one that too often goes ignored by Congress.
Public concerns about the misnamed PATRIOT Act are having an impact, as the Senate last week refused to reauthorize the bill for several years. Instead, Congress will be back in Washington next month to consider many of the Act's most harmful provisions.
Of course most governments, including our own, cannot resist the temptation to spy on their citizens when it suits government purposes. But America is supposed to be different. We have a mechanism called the Constitution that is supposed to place limits on the power of the federal government. Why does the Constitution have an enumerated powers clause, if the government can do things wildly beyond those powers – such as establish a domestic spying program? Why have a 4th Amendment, if it does not prohibit government from eavesdropping on phone calls without telling anyone?
We're told that Sept. 11 changed everything, that new government powers like the PATRIOT Act are necessary to thwart terrorism. But these are not the most dangerous times in American history, despite the self-flattery of our politicians and media. This is a nation that expelled the British, saw the White House burned to the ground in 1814, fought two world wars, and faced down the Soviet Union. Sept. 11 does not justify ignoring the Constitution by creating broad new federal police powers. The rule of law is worthless if we ignore it whenever crises occur.
The administration assures us that domestic surveillance is done to protect us. But the crucial point is this: Government assurances are not good enough in a free society. The overwhelming burden must always be placed on government to justify any new encroachment on our liberty. Now that the emotions of Sept. 11 have cooled, the American people are less willing to blindly accept terrorism as an excuse for expanding federal surveillance powers. Conservatives who support the Bush administration should remember that powers we give government today will not go away when future administrations take office.
Some senators last week complained that the PATRIOT Act is misunderstood. But it's not the American public's fault nobody knows exactly what the PATRIOT Act does. The Act contains over 500 pages of detailed legalese, the full text of which was neither read nor made available to Congress in a reasonable time before it was voted on – which by itself should have convinced members to vote against it. Many of the surveillance powers authorized in the Act are not clearly defined and have not yet been tested. When they are tested, court challenges are sure to follow. It is precisely because we cannot predict how the PATRIOT Act will be interpreted and used in future decades that we should question it today.
Original "un-doctored" article
------------------
What happened to the "true conservatives," I ask?
What happened to the guys with the elephant lapel-pins who used to believe in small and frugal government, jealous protection of God-ordained individual constitutional rights, and non-intervention in international affairs?
Why, exactly, do we behave as a nation of grubby and greedy frightened rabbits?
Comments, anyone?
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
9 comments:
Rudi
I found it interesting that what you wrote about the Patriot Act could also be applied to the routine dealings on all of these multi million dollar deals between Mayor Godfrey and the almost "late" Ogden City Council:
"the full text of which was neither read nor made available to Congress in a reasonable time before it was voted on – which by itself should have convinced members to vote against it."
We have become a nation of sheep.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. -- Benjamin Franklin
That was the 19th Century, and we now live in the 21st!
We should obey our annointed leaders, affirm them, and do whatever they say.
Everybody who posts on this board is going to hell -- 'cept me, of course.
I'll tell you later about my electric choo-choo! (wink)
He says it as a joke,
the funny part is,
he really believes it!
I started a joke, which started the whole world crying,
But I didn’t see that the joke was on me, oh no.
I started to cry, which started the whole world laughing,
Oh, if I’d only seen that the joke was on me.
I looked at the skies, running my hands over my eyes,
And I fell out of bed, hurting my head from things that I’d said.
Til I finally died, which started the whole world living,
Oh, if I’d only seen that the joke was on me.
I looked at the skies, running my hands over my eyes,
And I fell out of bed, hurting my head from things that I’d said.
’til I finally died, which started the whole world living,
Oh, if I’d only seen that the joke was one me.
Rudi: If the systematic dismantling of civil liberties under the PATRIOT Act is becoming too painful --which it is -- we who wear the, er, donkey lapel pins would be pleased to welcome you to the fold.
Both the DemocRATs and ReTHUGLICANS seem to be on the same page these days, Elder McConkie. Imagine a presidential race where both of the contenders were Skull & Bonesmen from Yale. Well, actually, that's what we had last time. Go figure.
The system is rigged.
We got tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee once again in 2004.
I plan to continue working feverishly at the grass-roots to support Republicans with morals and ethics.
If you'll promise to do the same with the demos, there will possibly be hope for this country.
I favor small and frugal government, jealous regard for our God-given natural individual rights, and government non-intervention in foreign affairs.
I'm not sure right now that either of the two parties represents those values; but I believe the Republican party remains our best hope for those things. At least there's a sizeble minority of Republicans who are sympathetic to those ideals. Ron Paul is on the forefront of that, I think.
Democrats? That's the defintion of big government for me, although I confess they've at least been talking the talk...lately...about sensible frugality.
I'm of a classical liberal philosophical bent, as you know; so there are more than a few things on which philosphies I disagree with, considering the current batch of bone-headed social-conservative Republicans.
Remember though, I'm an unreformed Ayn Rand groupie.
I wouldn't last five minutes at a Demo caucus, once the conversation turned from "social" issues.
Thanx for the invite, though.
Rudizink wrote:
I plan to continue working feverishly at the grass-roots to support Republicans with morals and ethics.
Hmmmm. Searching for moral, ethical Republicans. Maybe you should change your sign-on nic to "Diogenes."
Happy New Year, and a good one it should be with the NEW CITY COUNCIL.
It's been a blast....
New comments are not allowed.