What the hell is this?

[Dude_Doc]

Read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Security_Enhancement_Act_of_2003

It says it's from the last year. Is it in action now? Or will it be?

[Gobalopper]

"Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, also known as The Patriot Act II, is draft legislation written by John Ashcroft's Department of Justice."

[thomas]

I'm moving to Canada >:(

[ordos45]

You can't Scytale, not immediately at least.  Bush renegotiated the treaty so Americans can't be given Refugee Status.  Two GIs are trying to claim it and its been quite a legal battle.

[Gobalopper]

There are other ways to move without claiming refugee status...

[ordos45]

Your government would catch him eventually if he tried to illegally enter Canada....right?  Unless you're offering Mahdi's hand in marriage to Scytale.  :D

[Timenn]

Another loss for the privacy of the individual...

[Gobalopper]

No they probably wouldn't catch him. :)

And Timenn the legislation hasn't even been voted on yet so its a long way to becoming law.

[thomas]

Your government would catch him eventually if he tried to illegally enter Canada....right?

[ordos45]

I have my sources Scytale...  ;)

[danielsh]

The legislation won't pass, at least not as the Wikipedia cited it. After information about the Act went public (that is, it was published in full courtesy of a DoJ leak), the outcry was so overwhelming that Ashcroft and his cronies gave up on it. However, its more oppressive bits are virulently and surreptitiously  working their ways into other laws. That's why your financial records can now be seized without a warrant.

All of this is good, of course, because war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. God bless America!

[Wolf]

You know something, guys, if the neocon movement is really as unscrupulous and insane as a lot of you are making it out to be, then I think the US is past the point of no-return. Do you really think voting for Kerry is going to solve all your woes? I do not believe it will, because, let us assume that your point of view of the world is correct, and that all neocons in the government are immoral, lying, cheating scum who have no regard for the rights of individual citizens. Let us assume this is so.

Now... If they are as you say they are, they are not going to lose the election that has their power in the balance. If you don't know why, think about it.

I'm not saying, however, that the solution is to not vote for Kerry, not at all. However, I am saying that if you consider yourselves to be tolerant people do not jump to the conclusion that your foes must be madmen. It is very easy to fall into this trap of "All Republicans are evil! All Republicans are evil!" -- which simply further polarizes the American bipartisan system, and further prevents national dialogue from occuring. What I think we must do, and which I think will yield a more accurate representation of your political opponents, is to put yourselves in their shoes politically. Perhaps they truly think that this is necessary to fight terrorism, perhaps they can find out which Americans have been sending funds to Saudi Arabia, and the to al Qeada through financial records. If this is so, then your foe is not doing this to further his "American Empire", he is doing it because he thinks it's the right thing to do!

Now, while this does not make them evil, it might make them a little misguided. And I have seen opponents of the current system in power call said system misguided. But, if they are misguided, then they are not unscrupulous cheats who want to steal your rights ("Quick! There's a man with rights, go get 'im!"). One or the other, you cannot have both in order to cloak your ideals in some more morally pure light.

Anyway, I think that this makes more sense, because it moderates the view we have of our political opponents, and having recently become familiar with the median-voter rule, it is likely that 90% of our government is actually quite more moderate than we think.

[danielsh]

If someone thinks that killing another person is the right thing to do, then that doesn't change the fact that killing another person is wrong. He's still an immoral human being with no regard for the rights of the individual whom he killed. Most of all, he's still wrong.

Everyone has heard my opinion on being "moderate." I'm not going to compromise with some conservative nutjob who thinks that the right thing to do is protect security over liberty, because that's absolutely wrong. *shrug* Call me a liberal nutjob if you will (I've earned the title), but that's how I feel.

[exatreide]

Wolf what are you talking about? all republicans are evil.... its not bipartisan...its a fact...take empworm and gunwounds for example.. :)

[Wolf]

Sorry, Tony, must'a been smokin' crack.  ;)

[Anathema]

Define "liberty". If I had absolute freedom, I have unlimited rights- I could kill, steal and rape people as I choose. No doubt those people would want protection against me.

In a nutshell, this is the essence of Rousseaus theory about the social contract: for a state to protect us we must agree to pass a number of freedoms and be left with as much freedom as we would want others to have against ourselves. In a democratic law state not every government act will leave your freedom intact, but the intention behind is only to protect you.

[Caid Ivik]

Social contract isn't Rousseau's theory, Locke defined it good century before him. True freedom is freedom with responsibility.

[Anathema]

I never said he was the first who came up with the idea. There are many "contract philosophers", I just picked one of them.

There is no "true freedom". Any rights we have are derived from the law, wich only gives back part of what we turned over to the state.

[danielsh]

However, if I remember correctly, Rousseau theorized that the ultimate responsibility of the state was protecting our liberties. That is to say, if it does not absolutely need to curtail a given freedom, but it does anyway, it violates its end of the bargain. A contract goes both ways.

In this particular case, the USA PATRIOT Act and similar laws unjustly and unreasonably restrict citizens' rights. They exist only to concentrate power in the hands of a few men, and eliminate some rights that would be called "natural rights," such as privacy, freedom of speech, and the right to legal representation (which should, I think, count).

[Wolf]

If New York is lost to enemy forces, for example, I feel that is enough cause for the sacrifice of liberty if it will help the war effort. In said scenario, the survival of the US as a nation is in question.

[danielsh]

The sacrifice of what liberty? Such a broad and general statement is... well... too broad and general. When the entire South was "lost to enemy forces," it was still inappropriate for Lincoln to suspend habeas corpus. What liberty are you talking about?

[Wolf]

The same sort that retook Stalingrad.

Okay, that's not fair. To be truthful, Dan, I do not know. I think the US would start out small (housing soldiers, maybe?), but, if our survival was literally theatened, I think many of us would be willing to go all the way.

[exatreide]

I wouldnt and i cant think of anyone that would, hell even during world war two in england when they were getting the shit blown out of them in the blitz and german invasion was a strong posibility they surenderd very few of their rights.

[danielsh]

Not really... don't forget about internment and the Smith Act. Personally, I can't think of too many fundamental liberties that I'd be willing to give up, even if the war were on our shores. Quartering? Maybe I'd deal with that, sure. But for the most part, when it comes to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to representation, the right to not implicate oneself, and most other Bill of Rights liberties, I can't imagine making the sacrifice.

[Wolf]

I don't think that its so much that we are unwilling to give up those rights, I think that the moral-cost of giving up those rights far outweighs whatever meager tactical advantage we could gain. If the enemy truly is at the gates, I can think of very few people who are going to be unwilling to commit fully to the war effort anyway. Spies, on the other hand, while a problem, aren't really hampered by reedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to representation, the right to not implicate oneself, and most other Bill of Rights liberties. Therefore, I would conclude that any rights we would give up would be rights tied directly to our victory in the war effort -- since most rights really aren't that helpful in a tactical sense anyway, there's no reason to give them up?