Slashdot Mirror
Viet Dinh Defends The Patriot Act
Grrr writes "Wired News has posted an interview with Viet Dinh, who worked on the PATRIOT Act for the Justice Department. In the past he said, "Security without liberty - it's not an America I would want to live in." And also, in this interview, "I think right now at this time and this place the greatest threat to American liberty comes from al-Qaida and their sympathizers rather than from the men and women of law enforcement and national security who seek to defend America and her people against that threat." Several of his replies are (predictably / necessarily / discouragingly) less than direct."
Thanks. The Sprite I was drinking shot out my nose when I read that :)
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
I'm still laughing. My kingdom for a moderator point! Okay, it's really a modest domicile or hovel, but that's about what a moderator point is worth. Why do I find myself so compelled, even obligated, to use them? Moderator points on slashdot: the first taste is free.
SiO2
Let's be realistic. Yes, the "people" (the majority) choose who obtains power (in some cases, to some extent), but this does not change the fact that individuals are driven by self interest. Government is nothing but a collection of individuals. Therefore government is driven by self interest, regardless of how power was obtained. Similiarly, as a consumer in the market, you vote with your wallet. Provided no government interference and no foul play, a successful businesses is one that has been "voted" into success by the consumers. The "will of the majority" theory can be applied here too, but of course, the consumers have no direct control over what happens in the board meeting -- the owners make the rules, not the consumers. Would you blame the consumers for Enron's criminal behavior? Of course not -- the Enron executives should be responsible for their own actions, just like government should be responsible for its own actions. Realistically, the will of the majority ends at the election polls. You can argue that the majority was willing to elect a certain politician, but in no way does this prove that the majority supports what the politician does after obtaining power. Here's an honest question: If you still believe that government is truly a representation of the people's will, then is it possible for government to make mistakes? (Is it incorrect to hold government accountable for its actions?)
Well, it is really a declaration that government has won. The PATRIOT act is everything they've dreamed of -- more power, more revenue, more control, more "responsibilities" -- those in power stand to profit now more than ever.