Why? It is incomprehensible to me that you don't object. I do object and I have two hundred years of Constitutional Law behind me, plus a president who swore in front of God and everybody an oath to uphold that Constitution, which includes two very important points:
Amendment IV
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.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
_______
If, because of some ill-defined and murky terrorist threat these rights are taken away to protect us, then the terrorists have beaten us without another shot being fired, without another bomb exploding.
Cannot you assume that these are temporary restrictions, dictated by necessity to destroy the whole infrastructure of terror and to intimidate the potential perpetrators? And after the security level is normalized, all the extraordinary laws can be reversed.
I did not learn the U.S. history on the same level you did (I studied in the Soviet high school), but I think that there were certain restrictions during the wartime in the USA as well. And the war against terror is the war in all the meanings of this word. I should even say that this is a WWIII, that does not look like the previous world wars, since it is waged with the fourth generation of wearfare. What is this about, you can find if you follow the link:
The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation
The argument that goes "I have nothing to hide, so the gov't can do what it wants" is often used by the complacent. When they start arresting or otherwise messing with one group of suspects, none of us are safe.
The blanket approach is often used by totalitarian regimes. I'd hate to see that happening in the US. Time to re-up with the ACLU!
Hmmm.. The statements here are reminiscent of statements made by numerous conservatives over the years when they complained of government infringement on their rights and were poo-poo'd about how they should be willing to surrender those rights for "the betterment of the whole".
Mr. d'Artagnan, U.S. Administration is neither Nazi, nor a Stalinist regime. I am sure that innocent citizens will not be arrested without any reason. But the terror suspects tend to abuse the liberties; the Patriot Act is intended to neutralize them, and not all the dissenters. I believe that Messrs. Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft are also Americans (not less than you are), and they value the American way of life that includes civil and individual liberties. But they do not want to permit to the terrorists to abuse these and kill their compatriots.
fishin' you are correct that many conservatives complained about infringement of personal liberty and i might add so have many liberals. i am in most areas very liberal but i have always denounced the invasion of personal rights and extreme affront to the citizens of america be they from the left or the right. it seems today that the continued disregard for civil liberty is cast from both sides of the aisle.
Achtung, Steissd! You are surely not alone in your willingness to accede to a "higher power" in a "time of emergency" -- there are many who feel the same way. I call them Former Americans, but I will help find bail for them if they are wrongly accused and will insist on their rights.
The whole point of freedom is that you are free and innocent until you are found to be guilty of a punishable crime. Innocence ("sinless, harmless") means untouched and untouchable. The police are not allowed to stop cars (though we know they do, more and more) on suspicion that they MIGHT carry someone who MIGHT be selling drugs, for example. The very idea that some that some bureaucrat might be deciding that, because I buy Mediterranean cookbooks, I'm harmless, or because I buy Adorno and Hoffer and (god help me) Locke or Thoreau, I should be "monitored," is purely dreadful.
Tartarin, if you are monitored, and it appears that you just like to read books of these authors but are not plotting anything illegal, I believe nothing will be done for you. But if (for example, of course) you are actually planning something dangerous, you will be stopped. By the way, in the latter case you may get less time in jail than if you actually succeed to do something harmful.
Please reread American history, Steissd. Your response makes no sense to me -- do you know what you are saying? This is not a partisan matter -- it is an issue on which the integrity of our system depends.
Steissd, you are completely ignorant of what is at stake here.
There is no such thing as a "temporary" suspension of civil liberties. Once the Bill of Rights has been eroded, who will restore it? Bush and Ashcroft who tore it to shreds in the name of fighting terrorism? TheSupreme Court which has now authorized the police to search and seize cars, houses, and people in the name of the War on Drugs? Where will we go to get our freedoms back? The people who stole them from us are the people who have the Constitutional responsibility to safeguard them. It is like asking the fox to restock the chicken coop.
