Quote:
Originally posted by ARTelevision
cthulu23, the point has been made several times that our excellent system of government has many avenues for checks and balances among the three branches, administrative, legislative, and judicial.
This same review process addresses roachboy's concerns as well.
Hell, if you want the other side check out the ACLU's voluminous reference material on this Act available at their site.
The point of the subject of the article which I started the thread with - and my own point as well - is that all of this is part of the normative operation of our governmental processes.
|
I don't feel that the Wired article implies that the Patriot Act is fine and dandy. I would call it a balanced interview with one of the architects of a very powerful, sweeping piece of legislation. The article neither praises nor condemns Dinh. The quotes that you selected for pasting only show a portion of the interview and do not feature any of the "hardball" questions that the Wired reporter asked.
Of course the Patriot Act is a part of the "normative operation" of our government, just as any law is. That does not imply that it is a good piece of law, however. One can look back at our nation's history and see any number of immoral, unethical or just plain wrong laws that were all part of normal government operations. I did not say that the Patriot Act is something outside of our system, I simply stated that I feel that it is unnecessary and imminently abusable. Let's put that straw man to the side, please.
Perhaps I misread an earlier post of yours. Did you not say that you don't make the mistake of trusting your government very often? To my simple way of thinking, that would make you more likely to abhor any infringment on personal liberty, but that's just me.
You speak of checks and balances. The judiciary serves as the most potent check to the powers of law enforcement, as it approves wiretaps, issues warrants and otherwise regulates the use of techniques that violate the privacy of a citizen. The Supreme Court has ruled that for eavesdropping on or for searching a citizen that probable cause must be proven (Berger v New York, 1967). How does that jibe with the Patriot Act's granting of these privileges without meeting the same guidelines? Does that not circumvent some of the checks and balances structure that you so rightly praise? It is the exceptional nature of the Patriot Act that I find so alarming, meaning "you have these rights, except...." This is the parallel system of justice that I mentioned earlier, a system set apart from the normal protections that we are entitled to (and we haven't even touched on the secret court that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act created).