Montana, Home of Vigilante Justice, Officially Dislikes the PATRIOT Act
Posted on | April 3, 2005 |
I’m glad to report that on Friday Montana legislators passed a resolution criticizing the PATRIOT Act. The resolution is said to be the most strongly worded state criticism of the PATRIOT Act. Obviously it’s just a resolution, and that doesn’t mean much to the federal government. However, I still appreciate the Montana legislators passing such a resolution. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: the PATRIOT Act is a horrible intrusion of our constitutional rights.
Comments
18 Responses to “Montana, Home of Vigilante Justice, Officially Dislikes the PATRIOT Act”
Leave a Reply
April 4th, 2005 @ 7:10 am
Yeah, I mean who needs national security anyways.
Whaccha hideing Nicole?
The Patriot when abused is a bad thing .. the act itself is not.
April 4th, 2005 @ 7:35 pm
Um, I believe most of it is. So, I should be for its blatant disregard for constitutional rights because I don’t have anything to hide? That’s a nice theory until they mistakenly come for you, and you have no recourse.
Also, I don’t feel safer because of the PATRIOT act. In fact, I would say it’s made me feel less secure because of some of the things allowed by the act.
April 5th, 2005 @ 8:40 am
Hide behind the protective curtain of the ACLU. I want my government to scrutinize every living person in this country in defense of this great nation.
They can look at my bank accounts, my credit history .. whatever .. just keep me safe.
THERE IS NO REASON TO HIDE FROM YOUR OWN COUNTRY.
April 5th, 2005 @ 9:24 am
I’m not sure how wanting to stop the erosion of my constitutional rights (and I suppose civil liberties as right to privacy is not explicitly granted in the constitution) labels me as “hid[ing] behind the protective curtain of the ACLU.”
I’m curious, though, what the purpose of living in our country is if it’s a police state. I thought the point was that we had the freedoms granted by a democratic government with strongly guarded constitutional rights. What’s the point if we give it up to be “secure”? Doesn’t seem like a good trade off to me.
April 5th, 2005 @ 9:34 am
Also, remember this discussion on the same subject? If there was such a thing as the NicoleSwan.com Hall of Fame, it would be the inaugural inductee.
April 5th, 2005 @ 9:37 am
All countries eventually have a corrupt government come to power. While the United States has (arguably) not yet seen this happen, rest assured it will happen. Remember, the US is still a young country.
When it happens, I’d rather this future corrupt government did not have a tool like the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act can be used to quietly and efficiently silence critics of a corrupt government.
In other words, when the government is corrupt those good citizens who truly have nothing to hide, will be the one’s attacked by the government.
-C
April 5th, 2005 @ 1:41 pm
“I’m curious, though, what the purpose of living in our country is if it’s a police state.”
Nicole, I guess planes exploding as they collide with buildings is a much better way to live?
I still don’t understand what you’re “giving up” but allowing the American government complete and total access to all your personal information?
Yes I remember having the same discussion on this site before .. oh boy was that a good one. I think you wanted to kick off the new site so you opened up the floodgates again .. good call!
Anyways ..
I think what it comes down to is I’m willing to trade in what you call “civil rights” for what I call “security.”
Riddle me this Nicole .. maybe you can explain how my “civil rights” getting compromised will affect my daily life. I surely can tell you how compromised security can impact your daily life.
“All countries eventually have a corrupt government come to power. While the United States has (arguably) not yet seen this happen, rest assured it will happen. Remember, the US is still a young country.”
Charlie, as you know we have a great system of checks and balances in place to avoid the system from getting too corrupt, hence the discussions we (and congress) are having daily about this subject.
I don’t believe the patriot act to be an invasion of my privacy .. nobody is peering at me through the window while I shower .. and I know that the Patriot Act has been abused (by both democrats and republicans)
It was a knee-jerk response to 9/11 and probably could be re-written to allow for the government to obtain the intelligence it needs to keep us safe but also to avoid being abused by those whom are using it for malicious intent.
Liberals are always crying about freedom and privacy, but when you get right down to it .. in this day and age of terrorism we need to have an upper hand somewhere to keep all the great people of this nation safe.
I’m not red, blue or green. I’m not left, right, north or south.
April 5th, 2005 @ 2:44 pm
Web: “I’m not red, blue or green. I’m not left, right, north or south.”
For someone that isn’t any of these things, you sure do blame a lot of stuff on “the liberals.” I think it’s safe to say you’re not a liberal.
Web: “Charlie, as you know we have a great system of checks and balances in place to avoid the system from getting too corrupt, hence the discussions we (and congress) are having daily about this subject.”
In the 1930s Germany had checks & balances too. They did not stop Hitler from coming to power. These checks & balances did not stop McCarthyism from ruining the lives & reputations of people all over this country.
Web:”Riddle me this Nicole .. maybe you can explain how my “civil rights” getting compromised will affect my daily life. I surely can tell you how compromised security can impact your daily life.”
Clearly, you don’t know what your civil rights are. Losing your civil rights means you can be arrested without any charges being filed. Losing your civil rights means you can lose your job, your house, and your liberty because someone, somewhere THINKS you might be a bad guy.
You’re argument that the Patriot Act isn’t an invasion of privacy isn’t entirely logical. Why don’t you open up your personal files so I can read them? You don’t have anything to hide, right? So, why not let me see them?
You might argue that it’s none of my business what your personal information is. That same argument can be used against the Patriot Act. It’s none of Uncle Sam’s business what’s in my personal files. I’m not a criminal, so the government has no right to treat me as one. If they want to investigate me, let them get a warrant.
You might also argue that I might use your personal data for illegal or immoral purposes. The patriot act, used by immoral & corrupt politicians can be similarly be used.
You might argue that the government is using data gathered from the Patriot Act to provide better security to that argument I’ll respond that 9/11
wasn’t a security failure, it was an Administrative failure. Everyone is in agreement that the CIA & FBI failed us. There was plenty of evidence what was going to happen, but that evidence was ignored. The Patriot Act wasn’t needed to gather this data. Since we already have adequate Intel gathering techniques. What good does the Patriot Act do?
The Patriot Act is overkill in the best of times, and deadly dangerous to us in the worst of times.
-Charlie
April 6th, 2005 @ 10:51 am
Hey Charlie, I appreciate your comments and we probably agree on 70% of the topics we speak about .. that’s why I don’t consider myself Republican or Democrat. I dont agree with anyone, ask Nicole.
“Clearly, you don’t know what your civil rights are. Losing your civil rights means you can be arrested without any charges being filed. Losing your civil rights means you can lose your job, your house, and your liberty because someone, somewhere THINKS you might be a bad guy.”
Please, give me a specific example .. because I think this is bullshit .. “Oh if the bogyman knows where you are he will surely get you.” How would government having access to my personal and financial records be of any consequence to me? Again, specific example.
“Why don’t you open up your personal files so I can read them? You don’t have anything to hide, right?”
Simply, You’re not protecting me .. I want the government to look at my financial statements to see if im (or you) are receiving $9,999 a week from some guy in the Taliban to build him a bomb. What are you going to do with that information .. cancel my netflix account?
“It’s none of Uncle Sam’s business what’s in my personal files.”
Sure it is .. read above.
“There was plenty of evidence what was going to happen, but that evidence was ignored”
The patriot act may not solve this one .. but you LEFTIES are always screaming about personal rights .. “I don’t want anyone to know who I am .. I don’t want to have to show ID when I vote .. blah blah” ..
If we had stricter borders maybe these towel heads would have been caught at the airports rather than in the rubble of 9/11.
April 6th, 2005 @ 12:58 pm
What makes you think I’m a lefty? Are lefties against big government?
A specific example of infringement of civil rights here in the United States:
key phrases:
“Senator McCarthy and his followers felt there was a dangerous subversive element that posed a danger to the security of the country, thereby justifying extreme, possibly illegal measures”
“…McCarthy ruined many people’s lives with accusations that were in some cases not backed up by evidence.”
Here we have an example of AN ELECTED OFFICIAL “ruining people’s lives with accusations that were … not backed up by evidence.” This happened only 50 years ago in the hallowed halls of the US Congress.
Another example post 9/11
This poor guy was locked up for 2 years!
This could happen to YOU.
-C
April 7th, 2005 @ 8:22 am
“Riddle me this Nicole .. maybe you can explain how my “civil rights” getting compromised will affect my daily life. I surely can tell you how compromised security can impact your daily life.”
Do you even know what your civil rights/liberties are? Civil rights don’t need airquotes, you use them EVERY DAY. Along with your constitutional rights, they allow you to live your life as you do.
Honestly, I would rather have my security compromised than my civil rights compromised. The only thing I feel insecure about is the pervading penchant to leave too much power in the federal government’s hands.
April 7th, 2005 @ 10:41 am
“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security” –Benjamin Franklin (attributed)
Simply stating this does not necessarily make it true, but definitely something to consider.
Things about rights (civil/constitutional/libertarian/whatever else) is that you never really need them (or, rather, realize you have them) until they are taken away. The catch is, by then it’s too late.
April 7th, 2005 @ 11:19 am
Hey, Jeremy. Good to see a fellow econ junkie in here.
BTW, earlier I wanted to leave a comment on your blog but was thwarted by the Blogger account only comment system. Good stuff, though.
April 7th, 2005 @ 1:23 pm
Hey Nicole, what’s up with your life lately?
Yeah, Blogger does make you create an account, but it’s pretty painless. You don’t need to actually create a blog, just get a user id.
April 7th, 2005 @ 3:03 pm
“Honestly, I would rather have my security compromised than my civil rights compromised.”
Yeah because civil liberties will do you alot when dead.
April 7th, 2005 @ 3:35 pm
“During a crisis, the rights of individuals and the minority are more easily trampled, which is more likely to condition a nation to become a police state than a military coup. Promised benefits initially seem to exceed the cost in dollars or lost freedom. When people face terrorism or great fear- from whatever source- the tendency to demand economic and physical security over liberty and self-reliance proves irresistible. The masses are easily led to believe that security and liberty are mutually exclusive, and demand for security far exceeds that for liberty.
“Once it’s discovered that the desire for both economic and physical security that prompted the sacrifice of liberty inevitably led to the loss of prosperity and no real safety, it’s too late. Reversing the trend from authoritarian rule toward a freer society becomes very difficult, takes a long time, and entails much suffering.”
Who said this? Some loony lefty? Or someone in the era “before it all changed” (i.e. pre-9/11)?
No, it was a statement made by a Republican Congressman, on the floor of the US House. And he said it less than a year after 9/11.
As they say, read the whole thing (warning: it’s rather long):
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr062702.htm
April 7th, 2005 @ 8:18 pm
What it comes down to is whether giving up civil liberties (possibly most, if not all, of them if we stay on the track we’re on) is worth being “secure.” Yes, the quotes are intentional. Is physical security more important than the security of your day to day rights including freedom of speech, right to privacy, protection against unlawful search, seizure, or entrance, and an undamaged legal process? Seems like a high price to pay to me.
April 8th, 2005 @ 10:45 am
BTW, has anyone noticed that the terror alert level hasn’t gone up since the elections ended in November?
Hmmmm…