Should the Patriot Act be renewed?

Status
Not open for further replies.

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
BradyH1861 said:
I wrote (in my opinion) a wonderful seminar paper on original intent and the Fourth Amendment.

Allow me to quote James Madison, Father of the Constitution:

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
Brady H.
I'm very big on intent; unfortunately, far too many judges don't seem to understand the concept. Speaking of intent and Madison, you know, of course, that he would have preferred there to be no Bill of Rights, though his public opposition was not as pronounced as Hamilton's.

Your quote from Madison is excellent, I think, and it brings up an important issue: namely, what is freedom? What was it to Madison, et al? When we say the PA diminishes freedom, what does this really mean?

To Locke, freedom meant "hav[ing] a standing rule to live by, common to everyone of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it." Rousseau believed that under a legitimate democratic government, some citizens "shall be forced to be free." Their (Locke and Rousseau's) antogonist, Thomas Hobbes, claimed "Freedom, signifieth, properly the absence of opposition; by opposition, I mean external impediments of motion."

Are any of these consistent with what freedom meant to Madison? To Jefferson? To Adams? To most people today? To you? Love to hear your responses...

Rob :)
 

BradyH1861

Hold Fast.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
3,239
Reaction score
581
Location
Upper Texas Coast
Website
civilwaraddict.com
Optimus said:
Wait, so your main objection is the fact that the government can, without a warrant, find out if you've been checking out, "Solo Kama Sutra" again?

C'mon, there's SO much more about the PA to be pissed about.


Read my posts again. I said that I was holding back and that I had lots of objections. I gave the one that I thought that most people on the board could relate to. But I said more than once that I had many objections.

It's just that most of them are probably the same that everyone else has.

And, by the way, I do not need to check out any copies of Solo Kama Sutra.

I already own my own copy!

Brady H.
 

VOTE_BOT

Gott weiß ich will kein Engel sein
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
435
Reaction score
94
Age
117
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Wait, so your main objection is the fact that the government can, without a warrant, find out if you've been checking out, "Solo Kama Sutra" again?

This is just silly, to reduce this one facet to something so trivial. The tracking of reading materials is far more insidious than finding out who's peeping at "Solo Kama Sutra".

As Brady pointed out, this is one that should be of grave concern to writers, so it was not at all unreasonable that it would be the one put forth on these boards.
 

BradyH1861

Hold Fast.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
3,239
Reaction score
581
Location
Upper Texas Coast
Website
civilwaraddict.com
robeiae said:
I'm very big on intent; unfortunately, far too many judges don't seem to understand the concept. Speaking of intent and Madison, you know, of course, that he would have preferred there to be no Bill of Rights, though his public opposition was not as pronounced as Hamilton's.

Your quote from Madison is excellent, I think, and it brings up an important issue: namely, what is freedom? What was it to Madison, et al? When we say the PA diminishes freedom, what does this really mean?

To Locke, freedom meant "hav[ing] a standing rule to live by, common to everyone of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it." Rousseau believed that under a legitimate democratic government, some citizens "shall be forced to be free." Their (Locke and Rousseau's) antogonist, Thomas Hobbes, claimed "Freedom, signifieth, properly the absence of opposition; by opposition, I mean external impediments of motion."

Are any of these consistent with what freedom meant to Madison? To Jefferson? To Adams? To most people today? To you? Love to hear your responses...

Rob :)

Wow! You get the Brady Award for Deep Question of the Day. I think that Jefferson, Madison, et al, had perhaps a slightly different view on liberty and freedom than we do today. In keeping with the Madison quote (and with the PA discussion), I will give you one example.

We all know that the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and provides that no warrant shall issue without probable cause, etc. Why was and is this so important?

Brady's History Lesson of the Day:

The crown introduced a few things into the colonies that go people very angry during the mid 1700s. One such thing was the Writ of Assistance. This was a general customs warrant which allowed any officer of the crown to go anywhere and search anything or anyone for stolen goods. Notice that the 4th A. requires that a warrant specficially detail the place to be searched and the things to be seized.

In a court case arising out of a seizure made under a Writ of Assistance, Attorney James Otis said "There is a point beyond which, if Parliament goes, their acts bind not." That was in 1755 (I think...)

Fast forward thirty years. As our Founders debated the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, these Crown abuses were fresh in their minds. They wanted a system whereby people could not be arrested and searched merely on the hunch of a state agent. To them, freedom was something that they had just fought the world's most powerful nation for. Not something they read about in history books. They took nothing for granted.

Now, the Courts (with a faulty understanding of history) have created all sorts of exceptions to the Fourth Amendment which were never intended to be there. All because did not pay heed to Madison's warning.

So what does the Patriot Act diminishing freedom actually mean? Well, in my opinion, humble as it may be, I think it goes against everything this country was founded for. It is a blatant attempt to usurp (my word of the day) our liberties. As I said in an earlier post, our Founders were quite clear on the fact that the government did not grant us our rights and they could not therefore, take them away. Not to mention the fact that although it was intended to combat the threat of terrorism, the Feds apparently admit that they are using it for other purposes as well.

In conclusion, I think that Franklin probably said the strongest anti-Patriot act argument when he said the quote that I have below in my signature line.

Well, Rob, I hope that my lengthy pontification addressed some of the wonderful questions you raised. Thanks for your post, and I'm sorry I went so long.

Brady H.
 

Fractured_Chaos

Distra-- Ooh! Shiny!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
1,588
Reaction score
283
Location
Redneckville, Oklahoma

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
BradyH1861 said:
As our Founders debated the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, these Crown abuses were fresh in their minds. They wanted a system whereby people could not be arrested and searched merely on the hunch of a state agent. To them, freedom was something that they had just fought the world's most powerful nation for. Not something they read about in history books. They took nothing for granted.
Your points are well made, but I must disagree somewhat with the above portion, insofar as 1)there was no debate over a "Bill of Rights" when the Con. was drafted. It (the BoR) was a consequnce of the State Conventions, during which many argued against the Con. becuase it had no such enumeration of rights. Madison and others argued that this would be dangerous, since it would allow the federal government to assume other powers that the Con. did not confer to it (they were, of course, right). Nonetheless, the Bill of Rights was promised to the detractors of the Con. if they would vote to ratify it. Madison fulfilled hiis promise by drafting the BoR: it is a product of the demands he heard at the Conventions and the State Constitutions (as such, the correct meaning or intent of each "right" can usually be ascertained by discovering it's root, including the heavily debated Second Amendment). Of course, there are those "other" Amendments that Madison snuck in, but that another story...

And 2), freedom or liberty did have a specific meaning for them and they did read history books. See Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment, for starters. The federalist/anti-federalist literature is rich with references, as well (as I'm sure you know).

So the question still stands: What is freedom? What was it to Madison? What is it to you?

Rob :)
 

BradyH1861

Hold Fast.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
3,239
Reaction score
581
Location
Upper Texas Coast
Website
civilwaraddict.com
Point well taken. I should have differentiated between where such debates went on. As far as the history goes, indeed, the Founders were well aware of their past. They were jealously protective of their rights under English Common Law. What I was suggesting was that they had a much more concrete idea of what freedom was since they had just gone through the Revolution. I think that today, it exists more as an abstract notion. They lived and breathed it. Naturally they were well versed in all the relevant theories of the era.

Honestly, to me, I think that freedom is the right to be left alone. I don't want the government hand digging through my wallet. I don't want their leering eyes peering into my bedroom and trying to legislate about what goes on therein. I want to be able to speak my mind. I am naive enough to think that the freedom America enjoys allows people to go as far in life as their inner drive and guts will let them. (I know that is naive) Freedom means the ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness without government intrusion, so long as I am not hurting anyone else. Maybe Madison, et al, felt the same way?

I think a similar question would be "What is America to you?"

What is America to me? The United States is more than a map on a page. It isn't Congress, or the President, or the Supreme Court. It isn't the Constitution. It isn't the Declaration of Independence. The United States of America is the spirit that lives inside each one of us. It is the spirit of all those, over the years, who risked everything to come here, simply because of the promise of something better than they were leaving behind. The spirit that is the U.S.A. stood alongside the farmers turned soldiers who faced down the British Army at Lexington Green. It was with Washington's men that fateful winter at Valley Forge as they suffered through "the times that try men's souls." The spirit hovered over the battlefield outside New Orleans as Andrew Jackson and his men turned back battle hardened British Regulars. It filled the hearts of men on both sides of the Civil War, each fighting for a different dream. It was there as the Irish built the railroad going west, and the Chinese built the railroad going east. It was with our troops as they turned back the forces of Facism and oppression. The spirit watched over Rosa Parks when she refused to give up her seat, and inspired Dr. King as he said "I have a dream." It has gone to the grave with every American who has died fighting for the freedom of people in far off lands. It exists today in the hearts of those who risk their lives so that others might live. The United States of America is not simply hollow words. The spirit that breathes life into those words also fills the hearts of each of us. WE are the United States of America. And freedom is what lives inside us all.

(stepping off the podium)

Brady H.
 

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
12,799
Reaction score
2,499
Location
West Michigan
I can think of two 1300 foot towers that might still be standing if there had been a Patriot Act in September, 2001.

Just because nothing like 9/11 has happened since, doesn't mean it the Act isn't needed. In fact, it's likely that the presence of PA has prevented a reoccurance.
 

Optimus

Banned
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,854
Reaction score
356
Location
Gator Country, FL
VOTE_BOT said:
This is just silly, to reduce this one facet to something so trivial. The tracking of reading materials is far more insidious than finding out who's peeping at "Solo Kama Sutra".

As Brady pointed out, this is one that should be of grave concern to writers, so it was not at all unreasonable that it would be the one put forth on these boards.

Indeed it is silly. I suppose the "tongue-in-cheekness" of my post didn't translate well over the internet.

My apologies.


Brady, you can borrow my copy of that book if you want.
 

BradyH1861

Hold Fast.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
3,239
Reaction score
581
Location
Upper Texas Coast
Website
civilwaraddict.com
Roger J Carlson said:
I can think of two 1300 foot towers that might still be standing if there had been a Patriot Act in September, 2001.

Just because nothing like 9/11 has happened since, doesn't mean it the Act isn't needed. In fact, it's likely that the presence of PA has prevented a reoccurance.

We didn't need a Patriot Act to prevent that. The Federal intelligence and law enforcement communities should have followed up on leads that they had already received. They have admitted that they made mistakes. The PA would not have stopped 9/11. Proper intelligence sharing and law enforcement would have. And it will not get in the way of another attack.

Besides, if the government is really concerned about saving us from the terrorists, why didn't they pass the PA after the FIRST World Trade Center attack. Or after Oklahoma City? Or after the bombing in Beruit? Or after the rash of airline hijackings in the 70s and 80s?

And no, it has nothing to do with the fact that they "learned their lesson" and decided to act. The PA was a knee jerk reaction to a terrible tragedy. But how do you reconcile the fact that the Bush administration wants us to believe that it is our God given duty to spread liberty around the globe, yet he says to do so, we must give up some of ours.

The PA would not have prevented 9/11 and it will not prevent another strike, whenever and wherever it might come.

Brady H.
 

tjwriter

Emerging Anew
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
11,983
Reaction score
3,256
Location
Out of My Mind
Website
www.kidscoffeechaos.wordpress.com
As far as the Patriot Act stopping terrorists, they share something in common with kids in this aspect: If they really want to do something, nothing is going to stop them. They will find a way. Invading my privacy will not prevent them from doing whatever it is they want to do.
 

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
12,799
Reaction score
2,499
Location
West Michigan
BradyH1861 said:
We didn't need a Patriot Act to prevent that. The Federal intelligence and law enforcement communities should have followed up on leads that they had already received. They have admitted that they made mistakes. The PA would not have stopped 9/11. Proper intelligence sharing and law enforcement would have. And it will not get in the way of another attack.
The whole purpose of the Patriot Act is to beef up intelligence sharing and law enforcement. This is what they've done and are now being demonized for it.

tjwriter said:
As far as the Patriot Act stopping terrorists, they share something in common with kids in this aspect: If they really want to do something, nothing is going to stop them. They will find a way. Invading my privacy will not prevent them from doing whatever it is they want to do.
So we should just lay down and do nothing? After all, nothing we can do can stop them. I'm just glad people in charge of our government don't have that defeatist attitude.
 

tjwriter

Emerging Anew
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
11,983
Reaction score
3,256
Location
Out of My Mind
Website
www.kidscoffeechaos.wordpress.com
Not in the least, Roger. I was simply agreeing with what Brady had said about agencies not following up on lead. But yes, to a certain extent things will happen no matter what we have to done to prevent them. It happens all the time on a smaller scale in every day life. What makes a large event like a terrorist attack exempt from this?

As often happens when a catastrophe happens, people go overboard trying to prevent it from happening again. What is needed is a long, rational look at what really will work and be most effective without being detrimental to our people.

No, I do not believe that the Patriot Act has prevented another attack. The first one accomplished its intended goals: to kill our people and put us in turmoil.
 

BradyH1861

Hold Fast.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
3,239
Reaction score
581
Location
Upper Texas Coast
Website
civilwaraddict.com
The tools were in place to do the job before 9/11. I agree with you that we must do all we can to prevent another attack. Those of us in the Fire Service are the front line of defense in the event of a domestic attack, not the military. We are the "first responders." (along with police and EMS) My whole outlook on life changed after 9/11. Watching 350 of your firefighter "family" die on television is a serious wake up call. But giving up the liberties that men and women have fought and died for is not the way to go about it.

But here is what I am afraid of, Roger. Today the enemy is terror. What will it be 20 years from now? If the PA becomes permanent, who will they go after next? I really do not think that they will contain themselves to just pursuing terrorists. Actually, they admit that they have used it for other means already. It is a tool that the government will be free to use on ANYONE. Who knows what we will have in the future. Perhaps a president that you cannot stand. Maybe you speak out against them. When you get the early morning knock on your door and are wisked away and locked up without being charged with anything, you might think differently. It isn't what they use it for today that I fear, it is what they will use it for in the future.

And once again, I ask you why, if the administration says we are spreading liberty/democracy/freedom, etc, around the world, are they trying to take it away from us here?

Brady H.
 

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
12,799
Reaction score
2,499
Location
West Michigan
tjwriter said:
No, I do not believe that the Patriot Act has prevented another attack. The first one accomplished its intended goals: to kill our people and put us in turmoil.
Do you REALLY think this is the intended goal of our government? Granted people have died -- all volunteers -- and certainly we are in turmoil, but I can't believe that is the purpose for which the act was created. That is a very cynical view of leaders that I simply cannot share.
 

tjwriter

Emerging Anew
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
11,983
Reaction score
3,256
Location
Out of My Mind
Website
www.kidscoffeechaos.wordpress.com
I was referring to the first attack. The first attack accomplished its goals of doing what it has done to America. I believe that another attack has not occurred because the first one is still affecting us. Years later, we are still in turmoil about it, though the effects may not be solidly visible.
 

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
12,799
Reaction score
2,499
Location
West Michigan
(Somehow, my lastest post vanished, so I'll repeat. I hope it doesn't show up too.)
tjwriter said:
I was referring to the first attack. The first attack accomplished its goals of doing what it has done to America. I believe that another attack has not occurred because the first one is still affecting us. Years later, we are still in turmoil about it, though the effects may not be solidly visible.
I see. My apologies. I misread.

Still, you cannot prove that the Patriot Act didn't prevent further terrorism. (I'll further stipulate that I can't prove that it has.) But let me argue by analogy.

Should I give up my heart medicine just because I haven't had a heart attack?

I take a cholesterol lowering drug. I can't prove that it has prevented a heart attack, and I can't prove that it hasn't. It's not without risks, however. This drug could destroy my liver. But I continue to take it because my doctor (who is far more knowledgable than I) thinks I should. I don't blindly take his word, but I still follow his recommendation. We monitor it constantly.

I'm saying we should take the same attitude with the Patriot Act. People in positions of knowledge think we should have it. We should follow that recommendation, but continue to ask for verification.
 
Last edited:

BradyH1861

Hold Fast.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
3,239
Reaction score
581
Location
Upper Texas Coast
Website
civilwaraddict.com
Roger J Carlson People in positions of knowledge think we should have it. [/QUOTE said:
Are you referring to Congress? If so, I wasn't aware that being elected to office meant that you were more intelligent than anyone else. A position of power, yes. A position of knowledge, not necessarily.

I agree that you should continue to take your medication.

But once again, I ask you why, if the administration says it is our duty to spread liberty and freedom around the world, do they want us to give up ours here in this country?

Brady H.
 

BradyH1861

Hold Fast.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
3,239
Reaction score
581
Location
Upper Texas Coast
Website
civilwaraddict.com
And I might further add, belatedly, that the 9/11 attack was not just an attack on America. It was an attack on our ideals and what our country stands for. By tossing aside our Constitution in order to pursue terrorists, we are allowing THEIR ideals to win.

This is not a military struggle. It is a stuggle between two different ideologies. Our military and their bombers are simply the weapons used in the struggle.

Brady H.
 

Liam Jackson

Heathen Horde Elder
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
6,854
Reaction score
622
Gentlemen, I contend the pre-911 process did in fact work...right up until it bottle-necked at the mid-managment level. It stalled even further as autocratic bureaucracies (FBI aned CIA) engaged in a turf war. I also contend that elements of the the Patriot Act DO make it easier to gather intelligence and intelligence is the principle weapon. Simply look at the basic tenets and apply them to theoretical criminal pursuits and you get modest results, and even an occasional, "DAMN, look what we found!"

Italy, Spain, France and Portugal have been fighting domestic and international terrorism with degrees of success for years using some of the same methodology now made available by the Patriot Act.

The issue isn't "does this stuff work". At issue is the fine, nearly indistinguisable line between legitimate use and general abuse. You want to see an example on a more mundane scale? Research the "Terry Stop." Does it have a positive effect in combating crime. Sure! Is it easy to abuse? Damn tootin'. The Patriot Act carries significantly more risk of abuse in matters that may or may not have anything to do with Global Terrorism.

I am not happy with the deterioration of Constitutuional rights over a modest improvement in national security. Allow the Patriot Act to expire today, imprision the first fifty bureaucrats who allow inter-agency fueds to impede investigations and endanger national security. That would be a true Patriot Act.

One last matter to consider. I have the data in front of me. It's part of the day job. However, I won't share it just yet. Instead, I propose a bit of research for those interested.
First, determine the square miles of the Continential United States, and the square miles of OCONUS (including Alaska, Hawaii and all our US territories. Next, research the linear miles of US coastline and "hard borders", the number of state, regional, national and international airports. Next, research the number of international seaports, inlcuding the world's ten largest commercial ports. Then, research the linear miles of rail, subway, and tram common carrier routes. Finally, examine the number of hard and soft targets you would exploit, were you a terrorist, within 20 miles of your home. Once you've accumulated and examined the data, please tell me how the US should approach securing the borders. Believe me, we'd like to know.

300 million people in the US, give or take a few million.
2.2 Million cops spread across the local, county, state, and federal levels.

Now consider the following:
DOJ Facts (Bureau of Jail statistics)
2,131,180 prisoners were held in Federal or State prisons or in local jails -- an increase of 2.3% from midyear 2003, less than the average annual growth of 3.5% since yearend 1995.
-- there were an estimated 486 prison inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents -- up from 411 at yearend 1995. -- the number of women under the jurisdiction of State or Federal prison authorities increased 2.9% from midyear 2003, reaching 103,310 and the number of men rose 2.0%, totaling 1,390,906.(some cop, somewhere, has been busy) Oh, wait. You're sure those are all non-violent pot smokers, victims of a tyrannical drug policy. Okay, here's a little graph for you from the Buearu Of Prisons, and DoJ.
corrtyp.gif


Now, it's pretty clear that most of us, me included, are afraid to bestow additional police powers on Law Enforcement. Only a very small segment of that community will ever have opportunity to use the measures anyway, and still, the risk of abuse is just too high. In order for Law enforcement to be effective, the judical branch must "click" at the lowest levels and I can tell you, that ain't happening.

It should also be apparent that 2.2 million cops spread out and working child porn, civil service, traffic, school resources, homicide, sex cases, theft-related, parental abductions, drugs, white collar crime, illegal import/export, computer crime including identity theft, child-spouse-elderly abuse will NEVER be able to secure the miles and miles and miles of linear routes, borders, and coastlines mentioned above. They sure as hell can't protect the infrastructure. Hire more cops? Naw. Nobody really wants that. Solution? Maybe there isn't one. But there IS a starting point. Get dead-assed serious about the laws already in place, kill the plea-bargain system except for non-violent Class D offenders (drugs-use offenders, hotchecks, etc...) and have at the rest like a pack of mad dogs who've been on a South Beach Diet one day, too long.

The country jumped on a half-assed solution in response to a terrible incident. And keep in mind, at no time has there been a concensus on the full scope of the Act. Its creation is the culmination of backdoor trades, compromises, and favors. And given the timing of an all-too fresh national tragedy, the reactionary sentiments of the American people, and an inexperienced President, such a construct was almost inevitable.

Today, the threat of future terroristic acts still looms on the horizon and in our minds. However, thanks to the passage of time, and an aggressive counter-terrorism effort, ('m not talking about either PA or the Iraq war) the threat it is diminished to the point we now have window of opportunity to reexamine our goals and strategies. Contact your elected officials and demand that they stop the bullshit over who gets a Domestic Preparedness Center of Excellence sticker.

You think our elected folks have a real grip on all this? People, they're still fighting over the "revised acceptable IDLH of radiological beta, gamma and neutron sources, and the standardization of chemcial breakdown limits on mask seals inside 3rd generation Interspiro airpaks. Say that 10 times, real fast. (NIOSH and OSHA folk better start looking over both shoulders. The world as they know it is about to change)

Call your politicians. Make them articulate their thoughts, goals and plans. If they can't or won't, inform them that Burger King has an apprentice management program and an opening on the fry line. Put enough heat on the politicos and you might be surprised. Do it today. Yesterday. Just git 'er done, folks, because what we're doing now is a sloppy stop-gap, not a long term solutuion.
 
Last edited:

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
BradyH1861 said:
Naturally they were well versed in all the relevant theories of the era.
Yes, they were. Moreover, they had the knowledge/experiences garnered from the English civil wars of the 17th century to contend with. If you know that period, you know of the Diggers and the Levelers, two very different groups: the first being geared towards socialism, the latter towards a less egalitarian society, though much more democratic than the England of Cromwell. Lockean theory, as well as that of Harrington, Blackstone, and others is more consistent with the latter. Property is the key (or "the pursuit of happiness" if you prefer); Adams, in particular argues from this point of view, as does Hamilton and, to a lesser extent, Madison.

Honestly, to me, I think that freedom is the right to be left alone. I don't want the government hand digging through my wallet. I don't want their leering eyes peering into my bedroom and trying to legislate about what goes on therein. I want to be able to speak my mind. I am naive enough to think that the freedom America enjoys allows people to go as far in life as their inner drive and guts will let them. (I know that is naive) Freedom means the ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness without government intrusion, so long as I am not hurting anyone else.
Remember what freedom was to Locke: having a standing rule to live by. Madison, et al took it as a given, IMO, that freedom required law (this they really got from Cicero). How far can laws extend? That is the question. But I agree with you about the American Dream; it is an idealization of the kind of freedom this men sought to create (if I'm reading you correctly). The thing is, none of this suggests that this freedom entails doing whatever one wants to do: there must still be laws and behavior must still be controlled. The Framers hoped for a virtuous citizenry, but even by the time of Ratification, some knew this was a dream (especially Madison, who knew it all along). They were prepared to accept the future: that the following generations of America would reap the benefits of the system, often without the costs. But the costs are real and sometimes must be paid. What am I saying? That freedom is not simply a "right" we are entitled to, but is something we must earn. Unfortunately, I find that most see it as a "right," though I do not think you do, despite your initial statement above.

Rob :)
 
Last edited:

BradyH1861

Hold Fast.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
3,239
Reaction score
581
Location
Upper Texas Coast
Website
civilwaraddict.com
Liam,

You have my vote for President. I agree with everything you said in your excellent post. In my neck of the woods, there are too many potential targets to even mention. I would also add that local police are not that trained in counter-terrorism actions, if at all. They, like those of us on the fire side, are trained to deal with the AFTERMATH. Very little in the way of prevention. But then again, I can always say "hey, that aint MY job." (in true civil service fashion)

Another key question here deals with the borders, as you mention too. If our administration is so dedicated to stopping terrorism, why do we essentially have an open border with Mexico? It is our soft underbelly. I personally do not care one way or the other about legal or even illegal immigration from Mexico. What does, however, concern me is that with very little protection down here, anyone from anywhere can waltz across the border with a small nuclear device and go to town (literally) in the first major city they come across. As I said, I really could care less that people want to enter our country. We should let them in, after all, we are a nation of immigrants. But I would feel better if we could at least make an effort to ensure they aren't carrying a ticking bomb with them. (and I am not talking about people from Mexico, but rather people going through Mexico to come here)

Liam, surely you jest when you say that Terry Stops can be abused! Seriously, I always wondered how patting down a suspects outside clothing for a weapon can yield a baggie of pot hidden inside their underwear.

Oh, and may I add arson to the list of crimes that you enumerated in your paragraph following the graphic?
Brady H.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.