Viet Dinh Defends The Patriot Act

already lost by maliabu · 2004-02-24 13:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

isn't the objective of terrorism to terrorize people? the more "ACTs" we have the more obvious we're really really scared of terrorists.

now not only people are terrorized by terrorists for physical dangers, they're also terrorized by their own government for privacy invasion.

The greatest threat to my liberty... by Mr.+Mikey · 2004-02-24 13:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

isn't coming from Middle-Eastern terrorist groups. No, the greatest threat to my liberty comes from a government willing to take the freedom and liberty guaranteed me by the Constitution, and replace it with the illusion of security.

Planes aren't being hijacked because we stop the dreaded nail clipper from coming on board.

--
wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith

Re:The greatest threat to my liberty... by tealover · 2004-02-24 13:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

The government isn't taking your liberty from you. Your fellow citizens are. They are responsible for voting your government into power.

Republicans have control of the Executive, Legislative and if we examine the 2000 elections, the Judicial branches of the government.

The Red states far outnumber the Blue states, so popular vote becomes a moot point in future elections as the electoral advantage is seded to the Republicans.

You have to ask yourself. Is it really the government in the wrong here or is this an expression of the People's Will ?

You might be scared to learn the answer.

--
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Re:The greatest threat to my liberty... by MsGeek · 2004-02-24 14:28 · Score: 5, Informative

I did a speech about USA-PATRIOT for Speech 101 last semester. In doing the research for the speech, I found that some of the most damaging aspects of the act are built atop a law passed during the Carter Administration: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. And during the Clinton Administration the Legislature and the Executive Branch was also quite busy coming up with anti-privacy regulations like the Clipper Chip and the DMCA.
Basically, what I'm saying is that neither party has been particularly good on matters of personal liberties and the right to privacy. The Republicans are just a lot more blatant about their intentions than the Democrats. And the Republicans tend to go a little farther and push a little harder than the Democrats do.
Just keeping this debate honest...

--
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Re:The greatest threat to my liberty... by Dirtside · 2004-02-24 14:54 · Score: 5, Funny

Why does it matter who we vote for? On no account should any person who wants to be president be allowed to have the job.

--
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased

Re:I doubt it by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-24 13:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

How would something that you claim is so horrible get voted into law then?

Same way hitler managed to convince his people that 'jews' were the enemy.

Its called scare tatics.

I highly doubt the DESTROY part where you say we lose our rights. This thing had to be voted for by hundreds of senate/congress men.

Well, you can doubt all you want. Doesn't change the fact that america has made a mistake by following those who have already failed in history. And no, millions, like yourself, were duped into this law by sensless fear.

Untill america gets a clue, things wont improve.

Wonderful---more P.R. bullcrap from the Government by PM4RK5 · 2004-02-24 13:47 · Score: 5, Informative

NO, they are wrong. There is a distinct difference between liberties and safety! I don't see how people can be duped into believing that terrorist groups affect liberties!

The only reason they affect liberties is because Congress passes things like the Patriot Act. Otherwise, all they affect is safety.

Terrorists affect SAFETY, Congress affects LIBERTY. Get it straight, and we can all stop falling for this crap coming from Washington. If they said these terrorist groups were the greatest threat to our safety, then I'd buy it. But they are, however, NOT a threat to our liberty.

The Patriot Act is the threat to our liberty, effectively nullifying the Bill of Rights when it comes to searches and siezures, and the right to a FAIR and SPEEDY trial.

Government disheartens me. So do the people who buy crap like this from them and cannot draw the distinction for themselves. Just my (flaming) two cents.

This isn't supposed to be flamebait, but mod it as such if you think it is.

The problems with the Patriot Act.... by Prien715 · 2004-02-24 13:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

While the US has previously imprisoned people without access to council, these were in dire times, World War II, US Civil War, etc. While some could argue that these are equally troubling times, I find the argument problematic.

In both of the above examples, the very existence of the country was at stake, in one of the two, half the US had broken off. The other, millions of people decided to declare war on the US (Germany, Italy, Japan, etc). Despite the tragedy that was 9-11, the entire attack was planned by dozens of people and executed by about 20.

My second problem is the open-endedness. The suspensions of due process in the above cases were understood as temperary and were lifted as soon as the war was over. These days, presidents don't seem to declare war on things that can possibly be ended by a peace treat (drugs, poverty, terror, etc). Tell me, Mr Bush, is the war on terror going to be over before or after the war on drugs?

The suspension of due process indefinitely is an abomination to liberty, which I could've sworn was what we were fighting for in the first place.

--
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.

Re:The problems with the Patriot Act.... by Loki_1929 · 2004-02-24 14:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

"These days, presidents don't seem to declare war on things that can possibly be ended by a peace treat (drugs, poverty, terror, etc). Tell me, Mr Bush, is the war on terror going to be over before or after the war on drugs?"

Absolutely.

"The suspension of due process indefinitely is an abomination to liberty, which I could've sworn was what we were fighting for in the first place."

I would argue that suspension at all is an abomination to liberty.

As for the rest of your comment, I must take issue with a number of things. First of all, you're definitely not a southerner, else you'd be calling it the War of Northern Aggression, which better illustrates the illegal nature of the war. There is nothing in the Consitution telling the Federal government that it had the power to stop secession of one or more states. Thus, as per the 9th and 10th amendments, the right to secede from the union remained with the states and those within those states. The North invaded, conquered, and ultimately burned to the ground a foreign nation because it was unable to survive, economically speaking, without it. But I digress.

You use the 'Civil War' (not getting into a semantecs debate) as one example of a time when citizens were imprisoned without due process. Luckily, we've had a court ruling on the matter, entitled Ex Parte Milligan, in which the imprisonment of a citizen under martial law was reversed, and in which the Supreme Court held that the very declaration of martial law was, itself, unconstitutional. From the court's decision:

----------

"Martial law cannot arise from a threatened invasion. The necessity must be actual and present; the invasion real, such as effectually closes the courts and deposes the civil administration."[Emph mine]

"If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power."

And most importantly:

"Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war."

My personal favorite part of the decision:

"But, it is insisted that the safety of the country in time of war demands that this broad claim for martial law shall be sustained. If this were true, it could be well said that a country, preserved at the sacrifice of all the cardinal principles of liberty, is not worth the cost of preservation. Happily, it is not so."[Emph mine]

---------------

Ergo, example 1 was shown to be illegal. Shall we look further at example 2?

In World War 2, President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, which called for all the 'japs' to be rounded up and put into internment camps. This already looks pretty bad, doesn't it? In Korematsu V. United States, the Supreme Court gave the 'thumbs up' to the internment camps, rolling over like trained puppies for the popular wartime President. However... Over time, people actually got their heads on straight and took a good look at what had happened. In 1976, President Ford issued Proclamation 4417 which terminated Executive Order 9066. It was called "An American Promise", and it promised that such an action would never again be taken, while acknowledging that it was wrong in the first place. In 1983, a Federal district court ruled the detention

--
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

Re:Read the Patriot Act by 7Ghent · 2004-02-24 13:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

Secret arrests, supposed "terrorists" being held indefinitely without trial, widespead wiretap priviledges.. the list goes on. Is this what you call a "breeze rustling the trees?"

The Patriot Act is already being abused to prosecute all manner of crimes that have nothing to do with its original intent. If there were any checks and balances in the act itself, this wouldn't be happening.

Pull your head out of your ass and smell the Totalitarianism!

Hammer and Nail by maliabu · 2004-02-24 13:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

the old saying "if the only tool you have is a hammer, you will tend to see every problem as a nail". maybe that's why everybody's treated as terrorists now.

BULLSHIT! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-24 13:54 · Score: 5, Informative

The Patriot Act is now being used for non terrorist cases.

Using 9/11 as an excuse by BlueEar · 2004-02-24 13:55 · Score: 5, Interesting

I guess I would trust Bush'es administration a tad more if they were not using the excuse of 9/11 to prosecute organizations such as Green Peace. A more or less complete story can be found in The Miami Herald. If they are capable of using such antiquated law as ''sailor-mongering,'' (intended to deal with people would board a ship and use liquor and prostitutes to lure away the crew) to prosecute organization that is trying to stop illegal logging, how can you trust them they won't use Patriot act in some insidious way?

--
A religious war is an adult version of a fight over who has the best imaginary friend

The greatest threat by Molina+the+Bofh · 2004-02-24 13:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

I bet it'll be modded as flamebait, but it's my oppinion anyway, so I'll post it.

I think right now at this time and this place the greatest threat to American liberty comes from Bush and their sympathizers rather than from Al-Qaida.

This works this way: An unjustifiable attack to other countries (like Iraq) leads to more anger from its citizens and even other countries. Now we have not just one group of loons who hate the US (Al Qaida), but many.

--

-
Roses are #FF0000, Violets are #0000FF, find / -name '*base*' |xargs chown -R us && mv zig greatjustice

Re:The greatest threat by demachina · 2004-02-24 15:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

You are also 100% correct. The best way to fight terrorism would be to:

- Seek a lasting and balanced peace between Israel and the Palastinians. This open wound has been there for so long we've almost become oblivious to the fact that it is at the root of the worst of the Arab animosity to the West. The Israeli's are engaged in acts against the Palastinians that would be called ethnic cleansing if they were happening in Yugoslavia. The U.S. has always backed Isreal at every turn, no matter how wrong they are or how brutally they treat the Palastinians. A key reason, the Friends of Isreal is one of the most poweful special interest lobbies in the U.S. A politician can't even suggest a balanced treatment of Isreal and the Palastinians without doing the equivalent of grabbing the third rail. Howard Dean said just that and he was crucified for it.
- Stop supporting despotic Arab dictatorships like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The administration spends a lot of time wailing about what a despot Saddam was, crowing about democracy in Iraq and conveniently ignoring the regimes that we call friends that are nearly as brutal as Iraq in suppressing dissent. Iraq under the Baathists offered vastly greater freedom to women then you will find in Saudi Arabi or any other Islamic state. The administration made great propaganda with public executions and dismemberment by the Taliban and Saddam but they are also routine in Saudi Arabia.
- Get American (Infidel) troops out of the Middle East. Arab culture simply can't cope with the decedence of American soldiers, liberated American women and an army that is overwhelmingly JudeoChristian in their midst. It just smacks of the Crusades. Its generally forgotten that Al Quaida's core issue was the fact there were American troops roaming all over Saudi Arabia, the Muslim holy land, for more than a decade between the two wars in Iraq. One of the few plusses of the Iraq invasion was it provided a mechanism for withdrawing American troops from Saudi Arabia.

--
@de_machina

Re:Read the Patriot Act by MonkeyGone2Heaven · 2004-02-24 13:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

If your watchdog barks at every breeze that rustles the trees, you aren't getting any good information from it. Maybe it's time to start looking for a new watchdog or to take security into your own hands.

Your statement encapsulates precisely many people's arguments against the Patriot Act. Namely, I'd rather retain my liberty/privacy and take my security into my own hands than allow Big Brother Ashcroft, et al, do whatever he likes, Constitution be damned, in the name of ferreting out communists, oops, I mean terrorists in our midst.

Re:Read the Patriot Act by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-24 14:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

NO, McCarthy, the blacklists. etc. etc. The track record (aka HISTORY) is that this bullshit leads to more bullshit. And people are going to nip it in the bud this time, all these complaints have made sure that it hasn't gone any further. Just think if all these voices hadn't complained what types of laws they would be trying to pass right now.

You are basically saying "You made us take all these vitamins, but we never got ill"....

Well, if you ask me... by Moofie · 2004-02-24 14:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

There is no question that the last 28 months of peace in America, where not another life has been lost on American soil to terrorism, would have been much more difficult without the USA Patriot Act.

I think that somebody who doesn't understand the distinction between correlation and causation has no business whatsoever rewriting the Constitution.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!

Re:I doubt it by mangu · 2004-02-24 14:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

Please stop comparing relatively minor problems to the Holocaust.

But that's how it starts. As a relatively minor problem. Holocaust magnitude tragedies are only the consequence. I quote from my own website "quotes" page:

Hermann Goering

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

(at Nurnberg trials)

Repeat after me... by mrkurt · 2004-02-24 14:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

YOU CANNOT PRESERVE FREEDOM BY DESTROYING IT

I hate to seem like I am shouting, but I am shouting. What the Patriot Act does to the civil liberties of citizens is unconstitutional and wrong. There is no way that any part of that law should be renewed. It is essentially a declaration that the terrorists won. This is not what I want, and I don't think it is what the American people want to say to the rest of the world.

--
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)

Re:Read the Patriot Act by iamwahoo2 · 2004-02-24 14:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

The experts cry because they realize that nobody else will do it out of fear. Also they realize that as power is taken away from individuals, communities, states and given to the central authority of the federal government, that power will never return to the people.

Do not kid yourself, the Patriot Act is permanent. Legislation like this which is originally intended to address a current problem (Al Quida) has a way of lingering around long after the problem is no longer around to justify its existince.

The patriot act may look like a drop in the bucket, but do some research into how the founding fathers viewed strong centralized government versus what we actually have today and you can see how each of these minute changes has managed to turn this country upside down.

Re:Listen to your elders... by Theolojin · 2004-02-24 14:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

"The fetters imposed on liberty at home have ever been forged out of the weapons provided for defence against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers from abroad." -- James Madison, 4th US president (1751-1836)

--
Life is short; think quickly.

Hey America: by stealth.c · 2004-02-24 14:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

According to Viet Dinh toward the end of the article: USA PATRIOT and similar legislation will be necessary as long as we are "fighting terrorism." If you think he is correct, then you probably believe that the Iraq war had everything to do with Terrorism, and you are probably the caliber of person to whom I would like to sell this bridge I own in New York.

These people MUST realize that the "War on Terrorism" is a necessarily perpetual one. Is Viet therefore proposing that we give up our civil liberties indefinitely? Whether he knows it or not, that's what he seems to be proposing.

As long as Americans are willing to believe that politics is over their heads and that they shouldn't worry about what goes on in Washington, the way is wide open for some dynastic madman to install himself in the White House without even being elected, and start waging unprovoked wars in countries most Americans can't recognize on continents most Americans can't name.

As THE most powerful nation on Earth that claims to be, (of/by/for) the people, its citizens have a great responsibility to keep their civil servants accountable. If you ask me, most are allowing themselves to be distracted from that responsibility.

!!!!!!!! Mod Parent Up !!!!!!!!!! by blueberry(4*atan(1)) · 2004-02-24 14:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

F_ckin' A !!! The ironically named "Patriot Act" is a sinister civil-rights disaster.

"Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear." --Harry S. Truman

--

Visit the best Liberal Blog: DU

The best way to have both security and liberty by kfg · 2004-02-24 14:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

Is to secure liberty.

Yes, this does reduce safty in some areas, but that is the price you pay to avoid the real risk involved in allowing desaparacidos.

On the whole it's a pretty good bargain.

If we do not remove liberties than the people who died on 9/11 (I'm a New Yorker, so that list includes acquaintences and directly affected family members) did so as patriots protecting liberty.

If we use 9/11 as an excuse to remove liberties then they died so that we might all be less free and subvert the constitution.

If I've gotta die I'd rather do so for liberty, not a police state.

KFG

Re:I doubt it by ScrewMaster · 2004-02-24 14:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

How the parent poster can refer to he Patriot Act as a relatively minor problem is beyond me. But history has shown that you (and Goering) are correct. In a nutshell, what you're talking about is incrementalism.

Few societies willingly accept totalitarianism in one gulp, which means that citizens must be weaned onto it in small steps. Make no mistake: the Patriot Act (and many others like it) is a first step. In spite of the many rationalizations used to justify its continued existence, laws such as that really have no place in civilized society, much less the United States of America. Just don't get too complacent: I'm sure many Germans prior to the rise of the Third Reich felt that it "couldn't happen here" but they were wrong. Hey, I've seen Sliders ... I know what can happen.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

Your fellow Americans... by SuperBanana · 2004-02-24 14:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

No, the greatest threat to my liberty comes from a government willing to take the freedom and liberty guaranteed me by the Constitution, and replace it with the illusion of security.

Actually, the threat is mostly from your fellow citizens, who just don't care enough. Many have forgotten that democracy and freedom have risks, and the only way to protect them is to recognize, and ignore, that risk. If I stand a .00005% chance instead of a .00001% chance of getting blown up on a plane- but I and my fellow citizens remain free(ie, i didn't have to take my shoes off, didn't have to hand over "papers") so be it. If you aren't, you are a -coward-, and you can damn well pack your bags and move somewhere else, because America was founded by a bunch of guys who got -really- tired of exactly this kind of crap. What gives -you- the right to take -my- freedom, for -your- illusion of security? Franklin said it best: "They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Nevermind that the risk is infinitesimal; in one year, +10x more people died on our highways than did in all the planes+buildings involved in the terrorist attacks. Every three days more people die of heart disease than died in the terrorist attacks(700,000 people a year, roughly). Nope, I can't have universal healthcare, but I can have Johhny Ashcroft breathing down my neck.

Planes aren't being hijacked because we stop the dreaded nail clipper from coming on board.

Exactly. Further- if you want proof of just how ineffective these measures are, look at countries where "security" is tightest. Israel, for example, is indisputable proof that no matter what you do, you just can't stop someone determined enough; when they stopped Palestinian men, women started strapping bombs to themselves. Then there's England; no end of security procedures did little to stop the IRA. Those video cameras in London, which practically outnumber people, have yielded no drop in crime; same goes for their thousands of radar-speed cameras; in fact, speeding's gone -up-...

--
Please help metamoderate.

My Rant.... by SkorpiXx · 2004-02-24 14:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

::deep breath::

Okay kids, here's the thing. We can all sit on /. and bitch and moan all we like but if we aren't doing anything about it, it's like... uh... pissing in the wind.

Can you even fathom what a political power the members of /. could be if everyone got out and just voted?

Don't like what you see? Don't talk, do.

Wan't a coup? Fine. Let's have one in November.

S

--
bah.

Re:His name is Viet Dinh by the_mad_poster · 2004-02-24 15:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

Oh brother. It's a joke. Anybody without a strong, direct connection to the Vietnam War really has no grounds to be offended. Half the people here are probably either a) two young to get it or b) too ignorant of history to get it.

If you really are one of those people that's offended, that's fine. But rather than waste everyone else's time, just smile, shut up, and have a coke. You can't live your life running around pointing and shrieking like a schoolgirl all the time.

Great... now I probably offended some psycho feminist chick with the schoolgirl crack. And I probably offended a lesbian with the feminist crack. Oh shit.. now I really done did it...

--
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!

American Liberty... by Tatarize · 2004-02-24 15:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

"the greatest threat to American liberty comes from al-Qaida and their sympathizers" - What the heck? When did al-Qaida get the right to toss me in prison without a trial and never tell anybody where I am or why? I mean sure, perhaps they'd like to kill me... but deny me liberty? I think not.

--

It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.

Al Qaida has won... ARGH!!! by afxgrin · 2004-02-24 15:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

They never said they hate the idea of a free, tolerant, pluralistic society - they hate the result brought to them because of it....

Did ANYONE EVER read the letter from Bin Laden to the "United States".

Here's an article from the Observer containing the full translated text.

Here's some key pieces of the text for those who are too lazy to click on the link:

Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

a) You attacked us in Palestine:

(i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily.

And here's a part regarding liberty and freedom...

(3) You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offenses in which they did not partake:

(a) This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world. Therefore, the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.

Again, it's out of context, you need to read the letter to understand the point he's making.
I don't necessarily agree with what he's saying, but let's get the facts straight. It's not that they hate a free society, but they hate the fact that this free society allowed the oppression they've supposedly felt.

I have a feeling that if history occured differently, there would be a bit more acceptance for the things he argues against later in the letter (such as gambling, drug use, ... things he considers sins against Allah). If you read the whole letter you'll notice a lot of it has to do with Palestine....

Slashdot Mirror

Viet Dinh Defends The Patriot Act

31 of 817 comments (clear)