A Challenge for Supporters of the Unpatriot Act

[Archaea]

Watch the Lives of Others and tell me, you don't have one tinge of regret regarding that abortion, the UnPatriot Act.

[FarrahWaters]

The Patriot Act was definitely on my mind as I watched the film.

[Frank Ryan]

good point arch, many of the stassi (shown by the wiesler guy) thought they were protecting the state.

we shouldn't be complacent about losing any ground when it comes to our civil liberties.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Watch the Lives of Others and tell me, you don't have one tinge of regret regarding that abortion, the UnPatriot Act.

Way to hard to analyze that in general terms. We are never simply choosing between liberty and security. If you couch it in those terms you miss the whole argument.

We are all in favor of liberty. We are all also in favor of being secure. No one favors the elimination of either. So always we are balancing them. Always we are giving up SOME liberty and always SOME security. And in the end we must ask if we made a good deal or whether we gave up too much of one.

The lament in the wake of 9/11 was that we had not done enough to be secure. That our intelligence was not robust enough, that our agencies were too isolated one from another. So we create Homeland Security. We adopt the Patriot Act to try to eliminate some of the problems that led to 9/11 (that was its purpose, whether it achieved it, or whether it was worth it are separate inquiries).

The lament now is that we have lost too much liberty. I would say that if this is so it is only so at the margins. There may be good intellectual grounds upon which to do away with some or all of it. That said, no one hear and no one any of us know has suffered a loss of liberty. The talk that says that we have lost anything collectively is hogwash. Now it may be true that we have lost some of our character by depriving a very few people (all of whom save a handful were not US citizens) of their rights under circumstances where we should not have. I can get on board with that.

On the other hand, we have not been attacked again. So I think it is a fair question to ask whether we made a good deal and whether we need to strike a new balance. That is all fine with me. But the Patriot act as the enemy of liberty is hyperbole.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Way too hard to analyze that in general terms. We are never simply choosing between liberty and security. If you couch it in those terms you miss the whole argument.

We are all in favor of liberty. We are all also in favor of being secure. No one favors the elimination of either. So always we are balancing them. Always we are giving up SOME liberty and always SOME security. And in the end we must ask if we made a good deal or whether we gave up too much of one.

The lament in the wake of 9/11 was that we had not done enough to be secure. That our intelligence was not robust enough, that our agencies were too isolated one from another. So we create Homeland Security. We adopt the Patriot Act to try to eliminate some of the problems that led to 9/11 (that was its purpose, whether it achieved it, or whether it was worth it are separate inquiries).

The lament now is that we have lost too much liberty. I would say that if this is so it is only so at the margins. There may be good intellectual grounds upon which to do away with some or all of it. That said, no one hear and no one any of us know has suffered a loss of liberty. The talk that says that we have lost anything collectively is hogwash. Now it may be true that we have lost some of our character by depriving a very few people (all of whom save a handful were not US citizens) of their rights under circumstances where we should not have. I can get on board with that.

On the other hand, we have not been attacked again. So I think it is a fair question to ask whether we made a good deal and whether we need to strike a new balance. That is all fine with me. But the Patriot act as the enemy of liberty is hyperbole.

Excellent post, Dan. I especially liked this part:

Way too hard to analyze that in general terms. We are never simply choosing between liberty and security. If you couch it in those terms you miss the whole argument.

Arch and Mike LOVE that sort of thing. Good to see some balance.

[MikeWaters]

If we are not attacked = proof we need to keep patriot act as is.

If we are attacked in the future = we need to strengthen patriot act.

when citizens give up their liberties they rarely get them back, without the shedding of blood.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If we are not attacked = proof we need to keep patriot act as is.

If we are attacked in the future = we need to strengthen patriot act.

when citizens give up their liberties they rarely get them back, without the shedding of blood.

So can I assume you're planning on shedding your blood to get them back in the near future?

You're so devout in this belief I can't imagine any other outcome.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If we are not attacked = proof we need to keep patriot act as is.

If we are attacked in the future = we need to strengthen patriot act.

Geeze Mike, don't you think the analysis is just a little more nuanced than that? Put question marks at the end of those two sentences and you have the beginning point for a discussion of the matter.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

when citizens give up their liberties they rarely get them back, without the shedding of blood.

When have the citizens of this country given up liberties at all? I think the steady trend in our nation has been toward ever increasing liberty. But if you can think of some counter examples maybe that would change my thinking.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Geeze Mike, don't you think the analysis is just a little more nuanced than that? Put question marks at the end of those two sentences and you have the beginning point for a discussion of the matter.


When have the citizens of this country given up liberties at all? I think the steady trend in our nation has been toward ever increasing liberty. But if you can think of some counter examples maybe that would change my thinking.

We have suffered loss of liberties and you have not mentioned them. The wiretapping laws have changed immensely, so that the standards to obtain them are greatly relaxed.

And speaking of nuance, your post runs wild with ad hoc ergo proctor hoc. Show me a correlation or causal connection between the loss of personal liberties under the Patriot Act and the lack of attacks. Your conculsory statement makes no mention of the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, in other words, taking the battle to the would-be terroists, and depleting them of resources, as perhaps a more likely cause to a lack of attacks as opposed to a loss of liberties for the guies of increased security.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

When have the citizens of this country given up liberties at all? I think the steady trend in our nation has been toward ever increasing liberty. But if you can think of some counter examples maybe that would change my thinking.

Sociologically and anthropologically speaking we need not examine our history but also the histories of other nations.

NAZI Germany became oppressive and deprvied its citizens of liberties, China has, Russia as well as most Muslim nations.

Once liberties are sacrificed on the altar of state security, it will either be a long time before they are recovered, or won through bloodshed, that is the history of human rights.