How can we look down on governments that have kept their country in a bogus "state of emergency" for decades to restrict rights, when the US is kept in a state of emergency to restrict rights via the "Patriot" Act for over a decade?
The standard method is by drawing a distinction with regards to the degree of the restrictions. In other words, the argument is that the extra powers granted by the Patriot Act are far less severe in their reach, and far more restricted in their actual use than the powers wielded by the other regimes in question.
You're trying to set a record with maintaining a state of emergency in the free world?
The other standard method is by not comparing the free world with dictatorships. We can criticise both the Patriotic Act and the state of emergency in dictatorships and hold them to different standards or criticise them in different tones based on the degree of digression as compared to the values they claim they uphold and our own values.
What was suprising to me, is that this hasn't been the longest continuous interval in which the US was in a state of emergency. Apparently:[1]
"During the Watergate scandal which erupted in the 1970s after President Richard Nixon authorized a variety of illegal acts, Congress investigated the extent of the President's powers and belatedly realized that the U.S. had been in a continuous state of emergency since 1950....The Act terminated the emergency of 1950 on September 14, 1978"
So,currently only halfway through the US's longest state of emergency, which lasted 28 years.
Gee, maybe the degree of control matters. The US still has free and fair elections, with orderly transfers of power and in general a lot of freedom and civil rights. Syria sends the army out killing unarmed people for daring to protest a crappy clan-based inherited dictatorship spanning back to the 60's, which has proven absolutely brutal in maintaining control and creates a thick atmosphere of oppression. Are you afraid for your family's physical safety if you say the wrong thing in private conversation in the US?
I do still disagree with maintaining the Patriot Act though.
I'm not sure foreign policy operates in a realm where contradictions and consistency play any major role. It's too nuanced and complex for that. Very much a case-by-case, detail-by-detail, type of situation which is subject to change at any time. (often in 4 to 8 year cycles here in the US) I think it's generally understood that the US, being the last standing super power at the moment, isn't going to be playing by the same rules as everyone else in most circumstances.
How many elections have to come and go before it's clear that not enough people care? I'm not sure a sober analysis of the data can be painted with such a dismissive brush.
The constitution-free zones, the airport security-theatre, the electronic surveillance-state -- no matter how many times abuses and power-creep hit the news, no-one much cares. I'm pretty much convinced now that even the limited outcry about the TSA's porno-scanners was just a media-creation to fill space in the annual travel stories around the holidays. Because they're still there. But no-one's talking about it anymore.
And, honestly, we shouldn't be surprised. The Drunk-Driving laws provided plenty of data going back decades. People just don't seem to think too much about having their rights trampled in the name of 'safety'.
This message is from the Federal Cyberspace Police. Treasonous sentiment during a State of Emergency is punishable by 20 years in prison. Delete your comment or suffer the consequences.
Sure plenty of people are talking about it -- PATRIOT Act renewal was _the_ biggest topic on blogs and Twitter in February, with opposition both on the right and left. It's just that most of the mainstream media isn't covering it.
Most "civilians" I speak with have an additude that if you have something to hide the government should find out what you're hiding. The government is, in my experience, obeying the will of the people here.
You're not going to win this battle by getting the chattering classes to agree with you. The in-laws (or people at your place of worship, or people bowling in a non-ironic fashion) are the folks you need to convince that civil liberties protect them just as much as they protect people that they're afraid of.
I opted out for the first time last week in San Diego (thankfully Seattle doesn't have them at every checkpoint... yet).
It was kind of disturbing. While the TSA agent that (man)handled me was polite and professional, I couldn't help but get the feeling that the patdown is designed deliberately to be overly thorough as a "lesson" taught to troublemakers like myself.
What is far more disturbing than that is that in the probably ~100 people I passed security with, I was the only one that opted out. One lady got the patdown anyways after going through the Rapescan, though.
I took the train across the country rather than flying, and know others making similar tradeoffs. And hey, Congress defunded the next round of scanner purchases. So we are having an impact.
Just a reminder: the votes haven't happened yet. So call your Representative and Senators, send them email, write on their Facebook walls, etc. etc. And tell your friends to as well.
And then in 2012, remember how they voted on this -- and cast your own vote accordingly.
It allows you to look up politicians and see what their voting record is. I find this more useful than anything a person says or what their political party is.
It's hard for anyone, governments included, to give up power. Or any advantages indeed. A small example: I remember that the Dutch government (led by a socialist PM back then) imposed a 'temporary' extra tax on gasoline: fl.0.25 extra per liter [1]. This was sold to the people as a temporary measure. Guess what? The tax was never abolished. Don't expect governments to ever give back that they take from you. This goes for freedom and civilian rights, too.
Is it only US public sector that is so obsessed with pretty acronyms that seem to have more meaning than their unwrapped form, or is it common in Europe too?
Politics loves acronyms to rally behind some vague concept.
You should see some of the PAC names and referendum law names, they are often the exact opposite of what they actually aim to accomplish, very much on purpose.
When it comes to proposed US laws, the simple way to tell if the law is good or bad is as follows. If the name makes it sound like it is good for you, then it is definitely bad for you and should be voted against.
In W.'s book (Decision Points), he wrote that he regretted the way congress named it because it eludes that if you don't support it, you're not a Patriot.
Not that that's of much help, but it's interesting to know that not everyone responsible for it was behind the name.
Easy to write now. At the time, he was already drumming up support for the Iraq war and had 1,000 surrogates saying, almost exactly, "If you don't support this administration then you're not a patriot".
"We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
This makes it clear he was talking about nations, not individuals. Neither of us may agree with that proposition, but it's a lot more reasonable in the context of a world with many nations that stated they were against terrorists but secretly sheltered them.
I don't know about you, but that attitude does not gain any nuance at all just because you apply it to nations instead of individuals. In fact, given that nations contain a myriad forces opposing each other that an individual would not (and therefore conflicting views on pretty much anything), it seems considerably worse to apply it to nations than individuals.
And it's already bad enough using patriotism to blackmail individuals into supporting you.
Thanks for the whole quote. While not a W fan, I think it is also clear in the quote that you have to take action to be against us: harbor or support terrorists. The default, do nothing, state is "with us".
The timing of the renewal is awfully convenient -- two weeks after the death of the number one most wanted terrorist, and immediately preceding a presidential (re)election cycle.
I would hope that an intelligent, accomplished US leader would not feel the need to flex military muscle and pass tough-guy legislation just to gain credibility with right wing voters.
The timing's due to the three-month extension in February. With strong libertarian, progressive, and tea party opposition to the PATRIOT Act, Democratic and Republican leadership both want to remove it as a campaign issue for 2012: the House Judiciary Committee was proposing a six-year extension, and in the Senate Feinstein was proposing 2013.
For ten years prior FBI, CIA, and TSA's predecessor were complaining that their job was too hard when forced to follow laws and court rulings. After 9-11 we got a job act pretending to be a Law enabling finding of terrorists.
I submit spying on Americans is not finding terrorists.
This isn't so far-fetched as it seems, there is precedent.
For example, following the 21st Amendment and the repeal of prohibition, we had a herd of enforcement agents who had nothing to do. This is part of what led to the National Firearms Act of 1934 -- ostensibly a tax measure (anybody could have a machine gun, as long as you were willing to pay the $200 tax). How else to explain the odd linking of unrelated products under the BATF -- the "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms"?
Also interesting is that the law was upheld by the courts not because the government had the authority to regulate firearms, but because the tax was a revenue-generating measure, not a restriction or prohibition. The court conveniently ignored that the tax was sometimes more than 10 times the price of the item being taxed and therefore effectively a prohibition.
You can mislead people with facts by presenting them in different ways.
The current title all but forces people to make up their minds before they read the article. The original title is much less biased and serves to let people draw their own conclusion after reading the article and having all of the facts.
How would you feel if someone else submitted this instead, titled Support for the Patriot Act Weakening Among Republicans? If you read the article, you would know that this is also true.
Yeah, Mike Pence actually stood against permanent extension of part of the act - he's my "representative" and this is the first time to my knowledge he's ever done anything at all I approve of.
Well, editorialized may not be the best term, but you submitted with a title different from the title of the source with information that was not in the source.
If you want to make that point, you should submit with the original title and then comment with the additional related information that you think is constructive to the conversation about the source.
The title is concisely introducing the article -- and I'm glad it is, for the original title would probably escape my attention. IMHO in this case the altered title is an advantage.
From HN Guidelines:
> You can make up a new title if you want, but if you put gratuitous editorial spin on it, the editors may rewrite it.
But I read the whole article and I still don't actually know what this state of emergency is. Does just having the USA PATRIOT Act mean that we're in a state of emergency? If so, is that something the bill actually says, or you interpreting that the bill is so extreme that it only makes sense in a state of emergency? Or are there provisions in it that are only ok if someone declares that we're in a state of emergency, and we've been in one ever since it passed? (Which still wouldn't be 14 years. If that's the case, then you don't know that someone won't declare that we're not in that state of emergency before the bill expires)
Anyway, if the fact that I read your title means that I am more confused after reading the article than I would have been with the normal title, it is a bad title that does not fit the article.
(all the you's are to the submitter)
Edit: Also, the title is false. It hasn't actually been extended yet, it's just heading in that direction.
You are correct to be confused about what "emergency".
That's the point, the Patriot Act specifically invented one so they could increase domestic spying by several orders of magnitude and zap away rights - all without warrants. It's the only way they could have such crazy anti-constitutional powers.
Since people can still shop at the mall while we are at war, people don't realize we are in a declared state of emergency.
People often forget that PATRIOT is an acronym and implies a declared emergency (against "terrorism"). It doesn't actually mean you are only a "patriot" if you support the bill but was designed to feel that way.
