SOMETHING DOESN'T RING TRUE

SOMETHING DOESN’T RING TRUE Right after the first specious dichotomy that you are either “With us or against us” is the idea that our most valued American liberties are somehow inimical to our security.  Nothing annoys The Heretik more than people who call defenders of freedoms fools or traitors.  If you want to be truly secure, move into a jail.  No one from the outside will have a chance to bother you.  In the new Fortress America, we need to worry about the people who are too worried.

CALL ME CRAZY, but most Americans like to be left alone. And the Patriot Act challenges the very freedoms it theoretically defends.  Jeralyn Merritt at TALK LEFT cites NICHOLAS VON HOFFMAN on the random searches in the New York subways.

[VON HOFFMAN] If random searches of people in the subways are being done for anything except political effect, it’s nonsense. The decision to search is a confession of helplessness. It is saying that the police and Homeland Security don’t know who the enemy is, so maybe they can get lucky and spot one among the thousands racing to catch the A train.
Analyze it: The chances of seizing a terrorist in the middle of rush hour are almost zero. If the authorities had any idea who the would-be terrorists are or where they’re lurking or what kind of terror weapon they intend to use, they would grab them and clap them onto an airplane for “rendition” to some far-off place where the ACLU cannot get at them.
The Patriot Act, the bewildering reorganizations of the various federal police and intelligence organizations, the billions spent on electronic claptrap, the studies, reports and surveys by the commissions, committees and agencies have netted us next to nothing in the way of enhanced safety.

THE HERETIK SAYS: I’LL TAKE THE FOURTH, THANK YOU  The FOURTH AMENDMENT of the U.S. Constitution is under attack in this country.  The Patriot Act and the unfortunately named Department of Fatherland Homeland Security are the intrusions on our liberty that if accepted as normal now, will only become more grotesque as time goes by.  It starts with random bag checks in a New York subway. And then what?  Short story from The Heretik: A free society is worth the risks.  The alternative is to throw ourselves in a jail of our own making and possibly throwing away the key.

ONE TALK LEFT (JUST PAUL) COMMENTER COMPLAINS about the ACLU never having solutions:

While I don't think it's impossible that these "random" searches will actually catch anyone trying to carry a bomb onto a train (stranger things have happened), I'll agree that they are, for the most part, window dressing intended to make people feel safer.With that said, this kind of never ending carping about civil liberties does raise some questions: How should those responsible for stopping terrorist attacks from succeeding act to fulfill their obligations? What form of surveillance is constitutional? Would non-random searches (meaning you ride the subway, you get searched first) be acceptable? And yes, I know, the ACLU doesn't concern itself with anything so prosaic as offering real suggestions on how to protect us all; their only concern is our civil liberties, and as long as we have those, it doesn't matter if we're dead. But surely some of the great minds here can offer something more than complaints.

JUST PAUL SOUNDS REASONABLE.  Such arguments are seductive in their simplicty, a false OCCAM'S RAZOR that might slice the Fourth Amendment to shreds.

I'll take that as a "no", as in, "No, I have nothing constructive to say and prefer to remain ignorant and afraid of my own government. The ACLU is right; I would rather be dead than have my tote bag searched before I get on the train."Fair enough, Squeaky prefers to be dead than to suffer a moment's inconvenience. I can respect that attitude, although it's a shame that such a position will get everyone else on the same train killed. Now, is there anyone here who can offer a constructive comment, or is this a naysayers only gathering?

JUST PAUL, JUST PAUL, JUST PAUL is just giving us the argument that we can be free or we can be dead.  Governments historically doe the simplest things to get the quickest results.  Whether the “results” achieved accomplish the goal is another question.  Still we are left with a loss of liberty and at what cost?

WHERE DOES THE HERETIK START?  First lost is respect for those who would be free.  On top of that consider the cost of searching every person on the New York subway everyday.  And if it happens on the New York subway, why not everywhere else in America?  And imagine where all those dollars spent on “security” might else where go? 

AND FURTHERMORE: "Carping" somehow suggests that defending civil liberties is almost unAmerican.  Those who complain about "carping" forget the supreme law of the land.  It is interesting that those who believe in right and wrong as absolutes so freguently view our civil rights as relative.  If you want to go with that "Ends justifies the means" argument, why not go further and say that civil rights only apply when they are convenient?  Move into the jail now, throw away the key.

I AM FOND OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

ONE REASON I am so fond of the Fourth Amendment is because I know the authority that must pause before breaking down doors will most likely break down less of the wrong doors.  And search less of the wrong people.

A FREE SOCIETY PAYS A HIGH PRICE when authority without a check is given a free hand.  We are less free.  Check our founding documents for why the Founders thought liberty so important. And finally, something needs to be said about this "ACLU should come up with solutions" McKrap of an attack.  Let's think of the ACLU as a defense lawyer for the people who need it most.  It is not the function of a defense lawyer to come up with "solutions," but to defend. Those who ask defenders to "solve" a problem must know that would take time and energy away from defense, thus weakening defense of liberty.

IT MAY SEEM ODD TO SOME, but law enforcement officials and agents work within a government of laws, not men.  No less than the criminals they seek, law enforcement agents must respect the law, or no law truly exists. The Fourth Amendment to the constitution is the law of the land.

THE GREATEST THING WE CAN DO is do what we have always done, to not let fear ruin the simple joy and the exquisite glory of our everyday lives.

Comments

[Eli]

Ah, but consider. The terrorists attacked us because they hate us for our freedoms, right? Now that we've given up our freedoms, they must not hate us so much, because they haven't attacked us again! I mean, why attack kindred spirits?

[optional]

Three of the suggested solutions to the terror threat that the ACLU has no business propounding:

1. Spend homeland security dollars on areas of highest risk rather than spreading them about on the basis of political need (as pork, that is.) These monies could then be used to protect facilities (the electrical grid, the water supply, chemical and nuclear power plants), institute programs (like a more thorough search of incoming containers, if that's not just another frighten-the-people story) and make changes in the physical setting with a proven record of success against domestic terror. These kinds of changes can be found in European countries like Britain and Spain.

2. Stop financing the imperial venture in Iraq that is not now, nor ever was, about protecting the American people against the terrorists who have attacked them. Some fraction of that money could then be spent on international law enforcement, surveillance and intelligence and black ops that would actually eliminate those groups that are now planning to attack the US.

3. Deal with all the groups that espouse violence against Americans as a means to achieving their political ends equally. This would mean targetting many of the right wing militias and zealots in this country.

Any of these changes would have to come from the executive or the legislative branches of our government, the bodies that are actually empowered to solve the problems of our days. Shifting this responsibility onto an organization like the ACLU is either an ignorant or disingenuous attempt to exculpate those elected officials and their cronies.

[ED Beckmann]

Unfortunately this is the Conservative Intellectual mind at it's apex! I have found this is the sme kind of twisted tinking that came up with "Intelligent Design". I like to describe the Wingnut approach to all subjects in this way. "If they can't dazzel with details they will simply baffel with Bullshit"

[Night Bird]

It’s their modus operandi.