I think that consistency in government makes all the difference. I talked about it yesterday. It isn't justice if people aren't held to the same standards. Since our nation was founded, the principles of liberty and justice have been a central part of our government. We have the constitution to protect our citizens and control our government, and we have the court system, which was designed to guard against miscarriages of justice. So how is it that a country that preaches freedom and democracy can institute something that violates it's own citizens rights?
I've never really approved of the Patriot Act. Call me paranoid, but I've read 1984, and the idea of the government having the authority to put me under surveillance without probable cause kind of scares me. It's not that I don't agree with the government's fight against terrorism, I just think that lately they've gotten too power-happy. The law is just too vague, and therefore too easily exploited.I was glad, therefore, that today Judge Ann Aiken of Oregon ruled that two parts of the Patriot Act violated the 4th amendment requirement for probable cause.
I guess it's pretty normal for us Americans to be suspicious of our government, we're lucky enough to live a nation that allows us to voice our criticisms, and that right, along with many more, is something that is worth jealously protecting. However, I can't deny that, though poorly executed, the Patriot Act did have a purpose. It is just as important for us to protect American lives as it is for us to guard our freedoms. But that's tough. In a world were guns are pretty easy to obtain, and household products can be used to blow up buildings, how can maintain our safety and our freedom at the same time? I don't agree with the Patriot Act, but i think it is reasonable for the government to have some method of identifying potential threats, as long as this ability is carefully controlled.
I thought about it a lot last year. Wiretapping was one of my topics in model congress, and playing the part of a republican cabinet member, I had to propose some sort of anti-terrorist surveillance plan that violated as few American rights as possible. What I ended up proposing was something sort of like the Patriot Act, but with many more safeguards. It had three extra provisions designed to protect liberty. First, I thought that those colorful threat levels that the government announces should be put to use. They should be proposed by the president and approved by congress, and wiretapping would only be allowed if the threat level was orange or above. Second, in addition to having probable cause, the government would be required to keep full transcripts of all recorded conversations, and if the issue ever came to trial, those transcripts would be fully disclosed to the defending attorney. Finally, the government would not be able to arrest anyone on evidence obtained through wiretapping for any crime other than the targeted offense. if a drug dealer, for example, rather than a terrorist, were caught through wiretapping, they couldn't be prosecuted on that evidence. I thought those provisions would make the law more fair. I have no idea if it would actually work, but I was trying to come up with something that protected American citizens in every possible way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I wouldn't say that i'm a fan of te Patriot Act either, i agree that it's stepping over citizens rights a little too much. And I mostly agree with your version the Patriot Act, with hte exception of the government only being able to charge a person for the tageted crime, because if a person is breaking a law and nobody is around to see, they're still breaking that law. A drug dealer that gets found out from wiretapping shouldn't be dealing to begin with, wouldn't law abiding citizens have nothing to about being overheard.
I like Ellie's reference to "1984" when talking about The Patriot Act. In some aspects, The Patriot Act is similar to Big Brother and the idea that we are constantly being watched. Until recently, I have been against the concept behind The Patriot Act. After doing some thinking though, I have changed my opinion of it. I agree with Kamon when he said that "law abiding citizens have nothing to [fear] about being overheard." If you think about it, the government does not employ enough people to listen to or read every conversation around the world. Therefore, the government will only utilize wire-tapping if they have some suspicion about the people. If America is spared just one 9/11 (or even a smaller-scaled terrorist act) due to wire-tapping, then The Patriot Act is a good Act in my book.
In my opinion, the Patriot Act is something that splits people apart. There are such extreme views on the Patriot Act that many people never agree with the other side. I, personally, feel the Patriot Act is beneficial because it keeps the US safe in some aspects. Although the Patriot Act is very limited in what conversations could be considered "suspicious", American citizens do still have rights and that is why the Patriot Act is so controversial. I agree with Ellie's idea when she provided an anti-terrorist plan "that protected American citizens in every possible way".
I just don't like the idea that someone could be listening to conversations. Also, I don't like the idea of "Sneak and Peak" searches. I think Ellie's modifications to the Patriot Act are certainly better, but I'd rather not have it at all.
Responding to what Justin said, the likelyhood that the government would listen in to an average person's conversation is slim. Why would the governemnt what to listen in to an average person? They don't have enough people and time to listen to every single person. That means they would only listen if they had some sort of reason to listen to someone. I think that if it can help keep us safe, and it doesn't violate our rights unreasonably, then it should be implimented.
The problem is, Yakov, that the Patriot Act allowed the executive branch to decide what "some sort of reason" is. Section 505 of the original act allowed the Director of the F.B.I. (part of the executive branch) to issue national security letters, which served as warrants. Obviously, giving the executive branch the power to authorize warrants for itself and sidestep the judicial branch disturbs the government's checks and balances and could most likely lead to abuse and exploitation (as in the case of Brandon Mayfield).
However, even though I find that the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment and does "violate our rights unreasonably," I can't argue that the Patriot Act has not kept us safe.
Erm... sorry for not clearly signing that last post.
I personally believe that the Patriot Act is perfectly fine. I don't understand why people can make it into such a big deal, simply becuase hypothetically the national government could run rampant with new power. Honestly, government officials know that they are tredding on a fine line, and thus know that they can't and won't be allowed to abuse their powers. Sorry, but I think that the possibility of a Big Brother and crazily abusive court is just as likely as Bush abusing his powers and getting re-elected - it just won't happen.
Post a Comment