Wow. I have never seen propaganda like this — propaganda courtesy of a TV commercial featuring Tom Ridge, Secretary of the beloved U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
“Every family should be ready for a terrorist attack.”
I’m pretty sure that’s innacurate. I’m also pretty sure that the Doe family living on a section somewhere between the middle and the edge of nowhere is at little to no risk. I would advise them to worry more about the quite miniscule chance of contracting mad cow disease.
“Terrorism offers us a choice. We can be afraid. Or we can be prepared.”
So, is restricting civil liberties of citizens as well as foreign visitors how we show we’re ‘prepared’? The slow decline of freedoms must also be a sign of our preparedness. No urging of paranoia here, just preparedness.
Nope we’re definitely not afraid. We’re sure showing them, Mr. Bush.
22 responses so far ↓
1 web // Jan 8, 2004 at 9:02 am
It’s quite obvious that he isn’t the best president ever nor the worst, but this country is stuck in between a rock and a hard place. Would you rather us ignore all the threats and have another 9-11 or do something about it.
I vote the later.
2 Crystal // Jan 8, 2004 at 9:30 am
I’m with you! You tell ‘em!!!
3 Tim // Jan 8, 2004 at 11:15 am
She didn’t say anything about “ignoring threats”. Do you honestly think the only alternatives are (1) doing nothing and (2) passing unconstitutional laws? The FBI can now obtain your records from any “financial institution”–which is so broadly defined to include the Postal Service and jewewlry stores–without a warrant, without just cause. Not only that, the “institutions” are forbidden to inform you. There’s no oversight here.
“Temporary measures” are rarely temporary. Once government agencies obtain new powers, they don’t let them go. Also, do you think laws justified by the war on terror are really only used for those purposes? I’m lazy, or I would google the subject and come up with a plethora of abuses.
“Doing something about it” does not require bastardizing the very basis of our legal system. It does not require spitting on the Bill of Rights.
4 Nicole // Jan 8, 2004 at 1:05 pm
As Tim said rather succinctly and well, we are allowing the federal government to slowly seep further and further into our lives. It is now shirking the autonomy of individual states as well as the civil liberties and freedoms of all U.S. citizens.
When will it stop? When the rights espoused in our Constitution and Bill of Rights are applied on a per case basis? Have you heard of a little government program called Terrorism Information Awareness (formerly Total Information Awareness)? This is creepy, creepy stuff. The office used to sport a logo featuring a pyramid with an eyeball on top keeping its eye on the world. Yeah, it too was creepy.
More info: http://www.epic.org/privacy/profiling/tia/
I’m just saying, let’s not let this go any farther and get rid of the patriot act. And if it was an either/or situation, I think I would rather ignore the threats and at least live in a less 1984ish society.
5 web // Jan 11, 2004 at 8:25 am
I understand what you guys are saying, and believe me I feel there are better ways to go about it (securing the country). But unfortunately we don’t have access to all the “intel” they do, and that’s why we have elected officials to make these decisions. And its not only the president making these final decisions.
First off, when you speak of dwindling privacy and passing un-constitution laws I think of what information I would want to hide from the government. I don’t do anything that they would consider “wrong” so why should I worry about what they know? Only criminals that have something to hide should should live in fear.. not me.
With that being said, even if I did “cheat” on my taxes a little bit I think they could find bigger fish to fry. Maybe if the government had open access to more information they could catch other criminals when they cross state lines or try to hide their true identity.
I think this information should be secured with the highest security (which is never 100%) and that is my only true worry.
I do think corruption needs to be addressed in a major way. Especially when speaking about increasing access to information. Way too easy to “pay” someone off now and days
6 Tim // Jan 11, 2004 at 5:58 pm
But unfortunately we don’t have access to all the “intel” they do, and that’s why we have elected officials to make these decisions.
We’re not talking about, say, invading Iraq based on classified intel. We’re talking about unconstitutional powers being given to law enforcement. What would such justifying intel look like?
Do you really think “You shouldn’t mind unless you’re a criminal” is a good argument?
Also, it’s not just about privacy issues; for instance, the feds can now arrest “suspected terrorists” and hold them indefinately.
Incidentally, did you really just dismiss the constitutionality argument as irrelevant? Do you really not care whether the government follows the law or not?
7 web // Jan 12, 2004 at 12:19 pm
I guess I have a little more faith in our elected officials. I do believe under all the payoff’s scandals and such they still want to enjoy their country like I do.
If we still adhered to the bill of right 100% today with no amendments this country would be impossible to live in. To base law today on a document that is over 200 years old in insane. Although I do believe that the basics are still the same.
Bottom line. Tell me an BETTER idea than the current way of doing things. Make me believe that it can work, without my friends and family living in FEAR of a terrorist act and Ill support it.
Until then, check my background, check yours, and anyone else that wants to be in this country and I’ll be happy.
Too many people in this world bitch and complain about things and don’t do anything about it. Get elected to office, then figure out the real deal. I bet you would find yourself doing similar things that they do.
That’s why there elected, don’t like it, don’t re-elect them.
my .02 cents
8 Tim // Jan 12, 2004 at 1:39 pm
You misunderstand. I don’t think we should never make amendments to the constitution; I like the idea of women being able to vote, for instance. The point is, our government is based on law; it is not a dictatorship, with unlimited power in the hands of either one man (the president) or a committee (Congress). Our elected officials are restricted in their actions, for good reason. They cannot arbitrarily decide to violate the limits we have put into place. If the Constitution needs changing, they can do so, provided enough states agree. But the Constitution cannot be ignored, or there’s no point in having one.
As for your bottom line–Excuse me? You want to violate my rights and the rights of every individual in this country, and then you place the burden on me to prove that it’s not necessary? Sorry, no. You prove that it’s the only way, then get the law changed to allow for it.
9 Nicole // Jan 12, 2004 at 9:44 pm
Wow, Tim. I had never thought of it that way, but you are absolutely right. That last paragraph was point on, and one of the best quotes on this subject I’ve seen in a long time.
10 web // Jan 12, 2004 at 10:48 pm
Damn Hippies.
No Skin off my back, government isint looking into my background, TIM if that is your real name, maybe you have something to hide.
Im sure Bush is sitting in his office just planning on way to take away your[our] rights.
I forget Tim, what did you say you last higest elected government position was??
We cant claim to know 10% of whats actually going on. I say we leave these decisions to the people that the majority of the populus elected.
Tell me how it SHOULD be done?
11 Nicole // Jan 13, 2004 at 8:46 am
“The true American patriot is by definition sceptical of the government.” — Sarah Vowell
If there is ever a day when Americans do not question the actions of the government and elected officials, that same day I will be moving to Canada.
12 Tim // Jan 13, 2004 at 11:09 am
:) Thanks, Nicole.
Dude, you can actually follow my name link to my own blog, which links to my USD homepage, my full name, my bio, everything but my home address and phone number.
Incidentally, I’m a Republican, though on the libertarian end of the conservative spectrum. I voted for Bush, and in a choice between him and Dean, I would probably vote for him again, in spite of my dislike for some of what he’s done. I’ll have to see who all of the candidates are.
Do you really think uncompromising commitment to constitutional government makes me a hippie? Where does that comparison come from, praytell? If you’re thinking of Vietnam, did I say that I opposed invading Iraq, or waging the war on terrorism? Or do you think that anyone who questions the actions of the government in any way is a hippie? You believe in unlimited, unaccountable power, then? You say, “leave these decisions to the people that the majority of the populus elected.” I’m confused…Have I said anything about planning a revolution? Or do you mean that we should never second-guess our leaders? When I see the government changing in ways I think violate the law on which it is based, I will at the very least speak up. Please don’t censure me for doing so.
I don’t doubt President Bush’s sincerity and devotion. I don’t doubt Ashcroft’s sincerity and devotion. I’m somewhat less assured about every single agent of the FBI, CIA, etc. I’m also somewhat less assured that every single individual we elect in the future will share their good faith; I have no faith that they’ll give up powers once they have them–not for insidious reasons, just because “We can get so much done if we don’t have those pesky limitations.” Similarly, good intentions count for diddly, as far as guaranteeing against abuse of power goes. Finally, we didn’t just elect them and say, “Go to it.” We elected them and said, “Here’s what we’ll let you do. Go to it.” If they start going beyond their delegated powers, they’re violating our trust; that’s not acceptable, regardless of their motives.
One problem is that we’re talking in general terms; we’re not really specifically discussing specific issues. I’m not a reactionary, opposed to everything they try to do. Checking into the background of foreign visitors? Fine. We could discuss any other particular you want; I haven’t looked at every single anti-terrorism measure, and I’m sure there’s a lot of good stuff. What I object to is when they start trying to circumvent the checks and balances that we put into place. If they want to obtain someone’s financial records, why can’t they do it in the usual way–by obtaining a warrant? I realize that there are things going on that I don’t know about, and that there are legitimate reasons not to make them public; why can’t they tell a judge? Why is the executive branch trying to bypass the judicial?
One last thing. There’s some possibility I would accept measures that violate due process or privacy rights–maybe–if I could truly be sure that they were temporary, just responses to current dire situations. But there’s some problems with that notion. First, we have no idea how long “the war on terror” will last. We might still be in the same situation 20 years from now. Second, as I already said, they’re not likely to give up powers once they have them. Third, there’s a bleedover that occurs. Exercise of powers granted in the name of anti-terrorism is not limited to terrorism investigations. I’ve read stories–I don’t have them handy, but could find them if needed–of federal investigations using anti-terrorism powers in normal criminal investigations.
13 web // Jan 13, 2004 at 3:57 pm
Dood I hear you loud and clear. And believe it or not I agree with you on a lot you said. I don’t WANT the federal government to have access to my records, who does? I want peace of mind. I want for all US citizens to trust each other again, put faith in the economy and to get back on track like we were pre 9-11.
Unfortunate thing is a country as big as this one moves very slow, in regards to tightening all security holes, getting measures and safeguards in place so thing that happened that day doesn’t happen again.
I do understand the power is being abused, but its also being used. Used to thwart future possible attacks on this nation, which has been attempted and stopped. I wish those changes were temporary but you and I know that the “war on terror” is never going to end and it shouldn’t. Because as soon as we put our guard down it will happen again.
Do I wish we didn’t have to give up some freedoms for security, yes. Do I get pissed off because I have to show up 3 hours early to a flight so they can check everyone’s bag, no. I just don’t see any other way RIGHT NOW to gain the information they need to stop said attacks. Maybe that will change in the near future and we can put limitations on the Patriot act and similar like it. Who knows.
The new world of Wars and Terrorism sucks, but its not going to go away anytime soon.
14 Nicole // Jan 13, 2004 at 5:04 pm
Currently, I am more likely to lose sleep over the path our country is taking toward becoming a police state than over my personal security.
15 web // Jan 13, 2004 at 9:28 pm
Families of 2,000+ people would tell you otherwise. How quickly we forget that day and what really is at stake.
Wait for a dirty bomb to go off somewhere and you get to witness death via radiation posioning, you might wish they were listening then.
Ignorance is bliss.
16 Tim // Jan 13, 2004 at 11:26 pm
And the families of the 30,000+ people who died in Iran’s earthquake will tell you there are more important things to worry about.
Oh, I’m sorry, I thought we were randomly spewing death tolls and pretending that counts as valid estimation of risks and cost-benefit analysis for counteracting those risks. My mistake.
To put it less rhetorically: Yes, 2000 people died. Yes, terrorism is a continued risk. That does not tell us anything about effectiveness of the police-state measures Nicole’s referring to–or any non-infringing alternatives–and whether that offsets the damage they do.
I’ll say it again: You want me to excuse civil rights violations? Then, for instance, tell me why they have to ignore due process, why they can’t present evidence to a judge. If you want to hide behind “They know things we don’t,” then give an example of what such classified intel could look like; if you can’t, your argument is left without basis: “Maybe it’s possible that they could conceivably know something that would in some unknown way require their not trusting any judge, as a matter of standard procedure.”
You say that you wish we “didn’t have to give up some freedoms for security,” but have no support for the idea that we do have to. That strikes me as willful bliss.
17 Tim // Jan 13, 2004 at 11:58 pm
Oh, I had one more thought. Congress would naturally have to know these hypothetical classified reasons for the constitutional violations. That leaves us with information that:
1.) They can’t reveal to the public.
2.) They can’t reveal to any judge.
3.) They can reveal to the 535 members of Congress.
If you want to bypass 3.), then we’re not “putting our trust in our elected officials” at all; we’re putting our trust in one elected official–the President–along with his unelected administration and the unelected federal agents in the various bureaus and agencies that will be exercising these powers–and we’re asking Congress to do the same.
In other words, we’re trusting the word of the Executive branch that they really need to bypass the Judicial without telling either us or the Legislative why.
18 Nicole // Jan 14, 2004 at 8:41 am
In other words, we’re trusting the word of the Executive branch that they really need to bypass the Judicial without telling either us or the Legislative why.
And, this is not balance of powers or democracy in action. I’m just worried how far we will let this go, under the guise of national security. I guess if we don’t learn from history, we really are doomed to repeat it.
19 web // Jan 15, 2004 at 11:47 pm
We may have to agree to disagree on this one.
Do I think the decision should come down to the president only, no. Do I think that information is essential to the capture and thwarting of terrorists attacks.. yes.
Do I think our government is out to control and oppress all of its people, no.
Do I think that they choose to take power when they don’t have to, yes. Do I think it right, no.
Maybe when it comes to politics and news coverage I choose to ignore a lot of facts, and maybe that’s my problem.
But I choose to ignore a lot of that because if you sit there night and day pondering these things it turns you in cynical assholes that think the world is out to get them. I don’t know.
Thus, which in turn makes you hate life and the country that gives you the very freedom that you live on.
I guess by now you know that I come from a military family and have had many family members die because they have fought and died for their [and our] country.
President Bush has done what many people only talked about. In the capture of Sadam Hussein. If you want to talk about oppression, control and a police state..?? Talk to some Iraqi citizens. See what they say.
Want to talk about the “hoops” that the president has to jump through. I’m sure next you may complain about the fact that no WMD’s were found.. IF he [bush] didn’t have to verify his plan of attack Iraq and give him a “timeline” thus giving him a 3 month headstart to rid his country [move to Syria] his WMD’s we would have found d them upon entry.
in conclusion.
NOTHING YOU TELL ME CAN MAKE ME BELIEVE THAT THIS COUNTRY WOULD BE SAFE WITHOUT BEING AVLE TO EXAMINE EVERY BIT OF INFORMATION ABOUT EVER CITIZEN AT ANY TIME.
Go ahead, pretend that the “government” is plotting your death. Nothing I am going to say is going to make you assume otherwise.
I think
20 web // Jan 15, 2004 at 11:53 pm
I think it unfortunate that I needed to express mysef this way on Nicole gracious site. I’m sorry about that.
Tim I think you to be a man concerned about his future but I think you may be over-analizying the situation at hand.
DO you sleep with 7 lbs of weed under your pillow. How many people have you Killed lately? I understand that this country does many things that you deem “unfit”
Nobody’s making you stay here. Try france, maybe italy?
All I’m saying is this country has done fine for 300 years without your input. Im sure it will exist afterwards.
Sorry for the harshness of my comments but im at the end of my thoughts.
21 Nicole // Jan 16, 2004 at 8:47 am
Never worry about writing your thoughts on my site, I welcome discussions. That’s why my site is here.
I concur that we may have to agree to disagree. As with all political discussions, it’s great to learn both sides, but there comes a time when it is just rehashing the same facts and opinions.
Also, I know Tim personally, and he is not as you portray him. However, I will let him defend himself.
Finally, I must say I’m quite enjoying this.
22 web // Jan 16, 2004 at 11:24 am
I know Tim is a stand up guy, you can tell by the way he talks passionately and intelligently about this subject. I just hate the idea that someone thinks that no matter what they do the federal government is after them.
I don’t think we as upstanding citizens need to be afraid of our government trying to protect [control?] us.
No matter what you do, in a society where everyone CAN and DOES speak their mind, you will NEVER get EVERYBODY to agree.
I say F^%# it. Crack open a beer, and let our elected officials straighten it out.
If you want to change it, get elected. Sitting here being pessimistic about it is not going to get us anywhere.
Thanks for the platform Nicole.
P.S. last night’s rant were amidst the influence of Pabst Blue Ribbion hence the addition anger..
There goes my New Years resolution of not “commenting” whilst drunk.