"Harvey Newstrom" <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com> writes:
> Samantha Atkins wrote,
> > I am more concerned by claims that since we are in a state of war, it
> > is permissible to suspend various guarantees of our rights and freedoms.
> > If we are not actually "in a state of war" then these claims are bogus
> > and should be opposed as false.
> > If so this seems to be a big gaping hole in Constitutional checks
> > and balances.
> This is the "clear and present danger" clause. The government has to follow
> the constitution unless there is a "clear and present danger" that requires
> more desperate action. The government has always had the ability to bypass,
> ignore or suspend any constitutional restrictions whenever it deems
> necessary. Luckily, we have three separate branches of government. It is
> less likely that those who make the rules, those who enforce the rules, and
> those who judge the rules will all abuse their authority at the same time
> for the same agenda.
Except that those who enforce the rules are trying to rush through changes
to the rules whithout those who make the rules having their normal due
process and these changes would bypass largely those who judge the rules.
I refer to the MATA proposals fromt he Attorney General's office. Of course
his office and the FBI assure us they will protect our rights. Which is nice
to know since, if this goes through, we will have little protection other
than their assurances in areas that can easily be broadened.
Parts of what is proposed include being able to forget about due process,
search and seizure, judicial review and so on for foreign nationals engaged
in or even thought to be engaged in terrorism or anything anyone later
labels as terrorism (like cyber "terrorism" if you break copyright perhaps?)
and all who aid and abett them. The latter probably could be stretched to
where being a member of a group actively protesting such things or standing
up for the rights of the accussed and those detained without any sort of
due process could itself be seen as support of terrorism and subject you
to such measures yourself.
This stuff is deadly dangerous. I would sooner take my changes with being a
victim of the terrorists than have that kind of sword hanging over my head.
But it is all for our own "protection".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:55 MDT