The Patriot Act is nothing new

Discussion in 'Education' started by sealybobo, Aug 4, 2008.

  1. sealybobo
    Offline

    sealybobo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    50,411
    Thanks Received:
    3,179
    Trophy Points:
    1,845
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +10,122
    Take heart. Democracy has come under assault in America before, we've survived, and the nation actually became stronger for the struggle.

    The year 1798, for example, was a crisis year for democracy and those who, like Thomas Jefferson, believed the United States of America was a shining light of liberty, a principled republic in a world of cynical kingdoms, feudal fiefdoms, and theocracies.

    That year President John Adams pushed through Congress - by a single vote - the Alien and Sedition Acts, and was aggressively putting into jail newspaper editors who disagreed with him and supported Jefferson. Benjamin Franklin Bache - Ben Franklin's grandson - had been one of the first, as he had just published an editorial referring to the President as, "old, querulous, Bald, blind, crippled, Toothless Adams."

    Then-Vice President Jefferson was wretched. He'd left town the day Adams signed the acts, as a symbolic act. He would have nothing to do with their implementation. The abuses were startling, and, as I documented in an earlier article in these pages, "How An Earlier Patriot Act Brought Down A President," Adams was moving America quickly into the direction of an authoritarian, single-party rule. Over Jefferson's angry objections, Adams had even imprisoned a member of the U.S. House of Representatives - Matthew Lyon of Vermont - for speaking out against Adams's Federalists' favoritism of the rich over working people.

    Two weeks before the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed, June 1, 1798, as Adams was already rounding up newspaper editors and dissidents in anticipation of his coming legal authority, Jefferson sat down at his desk and, heart heavy but hopeful, put quill pen to paper to share his thoughts with his old friend John Taylor, one of his fellow Democratic Republicans and a man also in Adams cross-hairs. (Two decades later, Taylor would write down his thoughts on the issue of government in a widely-distributed book, "Construction Construed, and Constitutions Vindicated," noting that: "A government is substantially good or bad, in the degree that it produces the happiness or misery of a nation...")

    Several states had gone completely over to Adam's side, particularly Massachusetts which was filled with preachers who wanted theocracy established in America, and Connecticut, which had become the epicenter of the wealthy who wanted to control the government's agenda for their own gain. It was red states and blue states, writ large. There was even discussion of Massachusetts seceding from the rest of the nation, which had become too "liberal" (to use George Washington's term) and secular.

    "It is true that we are completely under the saddle of Massachusetts and Connecticut," Jefferson wrote to Taylor, his friend and compatriot, "and that they ride us very hard, cruelly insulting our feelings, as well as exhausting our strength and subsistence. Their natural friends, the three other Eastern States join them from a sort of family pride, and they have the art to divide certain other parts of the Union, so as to make use of them to govern the whole.

    "This is not new," Jefferson added, "it is the old practice of despots; to use a part of the people to keep the rest in order. And those who have once got an ascendancy and possessed themselves of all the resources of the nation, their revenues and offices, have immense means for retaining their advantage.

    "But," he added, "our present situation is not a natural one." Jefferson knew that the theocrats and the rich did not represent the true heart and soul of America, and commented to Taylor about how Adams had been using divide-and-conquer politics, and fear-monger about war with France (the infamous "XYZ Affair") with some success.

    "But still I repeat it," he wrote to Taylor, "this is not the natural state."

    Our nation's wisest political commentator noted the problem of politics. "Be this as it may, in every free and deliberating society, there must, from the nature of man, be opposite parties, and violent dissensions and discords; and one of these, for the most part, must prevail over the other for a longer or shorter time. Perhaps this party division is necessary to induce each to watch and delate to the people the proceedings of the other."

    "But," Jefferson asked rhetorically, "will the evil stop there?"

    Apparently he thought so, and his next paragraph to Taylor gives progressives a reminder for these times.

    This must be our mantra, even as we work harder every day:

    "A little patience," Jefferson wrote, "and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolved, and the people recovering their true sight, restoring their government to its true principles. It is true, that in the meantime, we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war, and long oppressions of enormous public debt. ... If the game runs sometimes against us at home, we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost. For this is a game where principles are the stake."

    ThomHartmann.com - This is a Game Where Principles are the Stake
     
  2. AllieBaba
    Offline

    AllieBaba BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    33,778
    Thanks Received:
    3,648
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +3,650
    No kidding. Pretty much what I've said all along. All the hysteria over the Patriot Act is just hysteria. It has a sunset clause, and if it's no longer needed, it will go away.
     
  3. Paulie
    Offline

    Paulie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    31,514
    Thanks Received:
    4,845
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +15,338
    What exactly is "needed" about it now? Why would you be willing to offer your personal privacy to the government for their version of "security"?

    Forget all that bullshit about "well I do nothing wrong, so I have nothing to hide". You have EVERYTHING to hide, when it comes to your inalienable right to be secure in your person, house, papers, and effects.

    You're willing to give those rights away to your government for "protection", sunset clause or not?
     
  4. AllieBaba
    Offline

    AllieBaba BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    33,778
    Thanks Received:
    3,648
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +3,650
    I don't buy into I do nothing wrong, so I have nothing to hide. I just recognize the necessity of a certain lack of freedom in time of war. I'd rather voluntarily sacrifice a little privacy than lose freedom altogether.
     
  5. Paulie
    Offline

    Paulie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    31,514
    Thanks Received:
    4,845
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +15,338
    Lose freedom altogether? How so?

    You really think Islamic terrorism poses a threat to this country's ultimate freedom? Come on.

    If they were every lucky enough to smuggle one nuke into this country and detonate it, they'd never be able to do it again. No one short of a country with a comparable military to ours is going to ultimately ever threaten our way of life here. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

    The founders would be flabbergasted at anyone willingly giving up ANY of the freedoms they fought so hard to provide to us, war or not.

    And it's never a LITTLE freedom you're giving up. You give govenrment an inch, and they will take a mile. They have proven it time and time again.
     
  6. AllieBaba
    Offline

    AllieBaba BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    33,778
    Thanks Received:
    3,648
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +3,650
    I think Islamic terrorism poses a threat to everyone's freedom, and everyone's life.

    No, the founders would not be flabbergasted. Remember, they required landowners to maintain militias and arms.

    I don't see that the censorship of WWII led us to a great loss of overall freedom. And that's essentially what you're talking about here.
     
  7. ReillyT
    Offline

    ReillyT Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,631
    Thanks Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    London, UK
    Ratings:
    +164
    I don't know about censorship, but Japanese internment and confiscation of property certainly seems to be a significant loss of freedom.
     
  8. AllieBaba
    Offline

    AllieBaba BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    33,778
    Thanks Received:
    3,648
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +3,650
    And they were released when the threat was over. So there was no long-term erosion of freedom.
     
  9. ReillyT
    Offline

    ReillyT Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,631
    Thanks Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    London, UK
    Ratings:
    +164
    Lincoln ignored the Due Process provisions with respect to US citizens. Roosevelt followed suit 80 years later. Bush again tried it recently. Do you see a pattern? Does a continuing practice of suspending rights during wartime not qualify as an erosion of liberty? Do rights cease to matter when the Executive (or Legislative) branches say so?
     
  10. Paulie
    Offline

    Paulie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    31,514
    Thanks Received:
    4,845
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +15,338
    Sounds like socialism to me. Interesting that Baba approves of it.
     

Share This Page